The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear petitions filed by actor-comedian Rajpal Yadav and his wife challenging their conviction in seven cheque dishonour cases and granted them exemption from surrendering, subject to a deposit of Rs 5 crore with the court registry.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on the special leave petitions (SLPs), making them returnable on September 15.
The court ordered that the petitioners would remain exempt from surrendering provided they deposited Rs 5 crore with the Supreme Court Registry by Wednesday.
The petitions challenge a Delhi High Court judgment upholding their convictions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. On July 10, the High Court upheld Yadav’s conviction but reduced his sentence from six months to three months’ simple imprisonment in each of the seven cases. It directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently and reduced the fine from Rs 1.60 crore to Rs 1.05 crore in each case.
The revised fine totals Rs 7.35 crore. Of the amount imposed in each case, Rs 1,04,75,000 was directed to be paid to complainant M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, while Rs 25,000 was to be credited to the State.
The High Court had considered payments already made by Yadav during the proceedings and suspended the modified sentence for two months to allow the petitioners to pursue remedies available under law.
Before the Supreme Court, Yadav and his wife have argued that the High Court failed to consider a subsequent consent agreement between the parties. According to their petitions, four agreements were executed in connection with a film being produced by Yadav after earlier arrangements could not be completed within the stipulated timelines.
They claim that under the fourth agreement, described as a consent agreement dated April 21, 2013, eight security cheques issued under an earlier agreement were to be returned and four fresh cheques of Rs 10 crore were issued. The petitioners allege that the eight security cheques were not returned and seven were subsequently dishonoured, leading to the prosecutions.
The petitioners have relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, arguing that the subsequent agreement should have brought the original complaint proceedings to an end and that the cheques underlying the cases were no longer enforceable.
The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed the couple’s revision petitions, noting an extraordinary delay of 1,894 days in challenging the convictions. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had also observed that repeated opportunities had been provided to facilitate an amicable settlement, but Yadav had failed to honour undertakings given before the court.