Sh. Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr vs M/S. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 4 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sh. Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr vs M/S. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr on 4 February, 2026

1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks extension of time to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, as directed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2026, on the ground that the requisite funds amounting to ₹50 lakhs have allegedly been arranged and require time to be utilised in accordance with the earlier directions of this Court.

2. This Court notes that the applicant-accused was directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 04.02.2026, vide order dated 02.02.2026. On the said date, the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant-accused had sought one week's time to surrender; however, the said request was declined. This Court, nevertheless, granted two days' time to the applicant-accused to surrender and listed the matter for 05.02.2026 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14 for reporting compliance. Despite the same, the present application has once again been moved seeking extension of time to surrender.

3. This Court, however, having already considered and rejected the said plea of the present applicant, is not inclined to grant any further extension of time. The past conduct of the applicant stands elaborately recorded in the order dated 02.02.2026, which reflects that despite repeated undertakings, the matter was adjourned on almost five occasions over the span of nearly one year, during which period the applicant consistently failed to comply with the directions of this Court. Not only this, the conduct of applicant no. 1 was specifically taken note of by this Court in the order dated 02.02.2026, wherein the following observations were made:

― 2. In the present case, this Court notes that the above-captioned petitions were listed for the first time on 28.06.2024. The Predecessor Bench, vide order dated 28.06.2024, observed that, without delving into the merits of the case, it was vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that they wished to sincerely explore the possibility of an amicable settlement with respondent no. 1. Considering the said request, the sentence awarded vide the impugned common judgment/order dated 29.05.2024 was suspended till the next date of hearing, and the matter was referred to mediation.

3. Thereafter, the interim order suspending the sentence was continued from time to time, as the matter remained pending for settlement between the parties. On 31.07.2025, this Court was constrained to note that although the sentence had been suspended as far back as 28.06.2024, on the undertaking of the petitioners that payment would be made, no payment had been made for the last one year. It was also observed that the learned senior counsel had assured that an amicable settlement would be arrived at and that some payment would be made prior to the next date of hearing, failing which this Court would withdraw the suspension of sentence on the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.08.2025.

4. On 22.08.2025, this Court was informed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that two Demand Drafts (DDs) of ₹50 lakhs and ₹25 lakhs respectively would be deposited with the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14 Registrar General of this Court, and that an amount of ₹9 crores still remained payable to the respondents. However, the said DDs were deposited only pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2025.

5. What transpired thereafter is noteworthy. On 17.10.2025, the petitioners assured this Court that they would make a payment of ₹2.5 crores to the respondent before the next date of hearing, i.e., 21.11.2025. However, inadvertently, the date for making payment was recorded as 28.11.2025 in the order dated 17.10.2025.

6. Taking advantage of the aforesaid, on 21.11.2025, the petitioners took the plea that they had not made the payment of ₹2.5 crores since, according to them, the date recorded by this Court was 28.11.2025. At their request, further time of 15 days was granted to make the said payment. The order dated 21.11.2025 recorded as under:

―2. Today, at request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, time of 15 more days is granted to the petitioner for making payment of the aforesaid amount, to the respondent(s).

3. List on 10.12.2025.‖

7. However, even thereafter, the payment as assured was not made.

On 10.12.2025, this Court was informed as under:

―1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners herein will make payment of Rs. 40 lakhs by 16.12.2025 and Rs. 2.10 crores by 15.01.2026.

2. List on 18.12.2025 at 02:30 PM.‖

8. Thus, the payment of ₹2.5 crores, which was initially to be made by 21.11.2025, was thereafter proposed to be made in installments, namely, ₹40 lakhs by 16.12.2025 and the remaining ₹2.10 crores by 15.01.2026.

9. However, it is material to note that the amount of ₹40 lakhs was not paid by 16.12.2025. On 18.12.2025, this Court was informed that copies of two Demand Drafts, dated 17.12.2025 and 19.12.2025, for sums of ₹25 lakhs and ₹15 lakhs, drawn in favour of the Registrar General of this Court, had been prepared and brought to the Court.

Petitioner no. 1 also appeared through video-conferencing and stated that he would make payment of the remaining amount of ₹2.10 crores by 19.01.2026, in compliance with the order dated 10.12.2025.

10. But once again, the needful was not done. On 20.01.2026, it was informed that since the last order had not been uploaded, the petitioners could neither deposit the said demand drafts with the learned Registrar General nor make the further payment of ₹2.10 crores.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14

11. Even thereafter, this Court showed indulgence and permitted the petitioners to deposit the aforesaid demand drafts by 21.01.2026 and to make the further payment of ₹2.10 crores by 27.01.2026. The order dated 20.01.2026 reads as under:

―1. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners will deposit ₹40 lakhs by tomorrow, before the Registrar General of this Court, in compliance with the order dated 18.12.2025.

2. The remaining amount of ₹2.10 crores, as mentioned in the last order, shall be paid by the petitioners on or before the next date of hearing.

3. List on 27.01.2026.‖

12. It is also pertinent to note that all the aforesaid orders and directions were passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties and, in fact, at their request.

13. On 27.01.2026, the matter could not be taken up and, accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today.

14. Shockingly, even today, this Court has been informed that neither have the demand drafts been deposited with the learned Registrar General nor has the amount of ₹2.10 crores been paid.

15. It is now stated that there was some typographical error in the details of the demand drafts and, therefore, the same could not be deposited. This Court finds it difficult to accept such an explanation, particularly when the petitioners were aware as back as on 18.12.2025 that the demand drafts were incorrect, yet the Court was repeatedly informed about their preparation only to seek adjournments and further time. Even the amount of ₹2.10 crores has not been paid, and there is no explanation forthcoming for the continued default on that count.

16. In above background, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner no. 1 deserves to be deprecated. Despite repeatedly giving assurances and seeking indulgence of this Court, the petitioner no. 1 has failed to comply with the orders passed from time to time. As already noted above, on 18.12.2025, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had stated that DDs amounting to ₹40 lakhs had been prepared and that the remaining amount of ₹2.10 crores would be paid by 19.01.2026. This statement was made despite the fact that the petitioner no. 1 was fully aware that further time was being granted only on their instructions and assurances.

17. Even thereafter, no steps were taken by the petitioner no. 1 either to deposit the DDs with the learned Registrar General or to rectify the alleged error in the drafts. No application was filed before this Court seeking clarification or permission in this regard. The This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14 explanation now offered that there was a typographical error in the DDs does not inspire confidence, particularly when the petitioner no. 1 was aware of the alleged error in the DDs as early as 18.12.2025, yet continued to seek adjournments without complying with the substantive directions of this Court. Even after the order dated 20.01.2026, whereby indulgence was again shown and time was granted to deposit the DDs by 21.01.2026 and to pay the amount of ₹2.10 crores by 27.01.2026, the petitioner no. 1 has failed to comply. Till date, neither the amount of ₹40 lakhs has been deposited nor the amount of ₹2.10 crores has been paid, despite the payment of ₹2.5 crores having been assured much earlier.

18. Today, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners informs this Court that he has been unable to contact the petitioner no. 1 as his mobile phone is switched off. It is further stated that, if granted time, the petitioner no. 1 is willing to deposit the amount of ₹40 lakhs by 03.02.2026. This Court is not inclined to accept such an assurance, particularly in light of the consistent past conduct of the petitioner no. 1.

19. In view of the above background and the repeated breach of undertakings given before this Court, this Court finds no justification to continue the indulgence granted to the petitioner no. 1 earlier, specially in the case as the present one, where the petitioner no. 1 himself has admitted the liability and undertaken to repay the amount. Accordingly, the amount already deposited pursuant to earlier orders with the learned Registrar General of this Court, is directed to be released in favour of the respondent no. 1, on appropriate receipt and acknowledgement, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners stand convicted by the learned Trial Court and that petitioner no. 1 was required to make payment of ₹1.35 crores in each case (seven cases, in total).

20. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner no. 1 is directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 04.02.2026, 4:00 PM, to serve the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court. This limited indulgence is granted at the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioner no. 1 is presently engaged in some professional work at Mumbai.

21. List on 05.02.2026, seeking compliance from the concerned Jail Superintendent.

22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. ‖

4. The present matter was listed for the first time before the learned This is a digitally signed order.

―6. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the impugned common judgment/order dated 29.05.2024 and it is urged that it was a genuine transaction where production of a movie was financed but the movie bombed at the Box Office, resulting in huge financial losses. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have already suffered imprisonment for a period of about three months in other related civil execution proceedings.

7. Without delving further on the merits of the case, it is vehemently urged that the petitioners wish to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement with respondent No. 1.

8. Although, this Court on a careful reading of the impugned common judgment, finds no grounds to interfere on the merits of this petition, however, considering the plea advanced by the learned Senior 0^ Counsel for the petitioners, and for the fact that the petitioners are not hardened criminals, the sentence awarded by the impugned common judgment/order dated 29.05.2024 is hereby suspended till the next date of hearing, subject to the petitioners submitting personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-

with one surety in the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned MM/duty MM. Further, subject to the petitioners adopting sincere and genuine measures to explore the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement with respondent No. 1.‖

5. This Court also notes that in view of the above assurance, the matter had been referred to mediation. Strangely, though the counsel had admitted the liability on instructions from the accused, and the learned Predecessor Bench had expressed his view of finding no merit in the present petition challenging the conviction, the accused dragged the proceedings for a while, however despite enjoying suspension of sentence, and despite admitting his liability and assurance to pay, failed to enter into a compromise or to draw a payment schedule with the respondent.

6. To add to his delaying tactics, when the matter was received back in the Court as the mediation did not succeed, to extend his suspension of This is a digitally signed order.

7. It is also noteworthy that on two occasions, i.e., 27.06.2025 to 05.07.2025, and 17.10.2025 to 20.10.2025, he had sought permission to travel abroad on the ground that it is only through his stage shows in India and abroad that he earns money, and in case he is not permitted to travel abroad, it would affect his undertaking to make payment of the amount due. On this ground, he was granted permission to travel abroad twice. However, though he was granted the aforementioned permission on the ground as mentioned above, he failed to make payment of the admitted due amount.

8. In a nutshell, on the very first date of hearing before this Court on 28.06.2024, the learned Predecessor Bench made an observation that there was no merit in the petition challenging the order of conviction, and only on his assurance to make payment of money, which was duly admitted by his counsel, his sentence was suspended. Therefore, he has failed to comply with every undertaking given by him to the Court from the very first date of hearing till date.

9. To reiterate, the conduct of the applicant herein, as reflected from the successive orders passed by this Court and the repeated non-compliance with the assurances given, is evident from the chronological tabulation set out hereinbelow:

                         Date                  Proceedings / Developments                                          Compliance     /
                                                                                                                   Non-compliance




This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14 28.06.2024 Petitions listed for the first time. On the Sentence request of the petitioners to explore an suspended on amicable settlement, this Court suspended assurance of the sentence awarded vide judgment/order payment of dated 29.05.2024 and referred the matter to money. mediation, without entering into merits.

28.06.2024, Suspension of sentence continued from time Non-compliance 12.08.2024, to time as settlement talks were stated to be (no payment made 18.11.2024, ongoing. despite continued 02.04.2025, indulgence) 31.07.2025, 30.07.2025.

31.07.2025 This Court noted that despite suspension of Non-compliance sentence for nearly one year, no payment noted had been made. Learned senior counsel assured payment before next date, failing which suspension would be reconsidered.

22.08.2025 Petitioners stated that DDs of ₹50 lakhs and Partially ₹25 lakhs would be deposited, and ₹9 crores complied later remained payable.

17.10.2025 Petitioners assured payment of ₹2.5 crores Partially before next date. Date for payment complied inadvertently recorded as 28.11.2025. DDs of ₹50 lakhs and ₹25 lakhs deposited pursuant to this order.

21.11.2025 Petitioners sought benefit of incorrect date Non-compliance recorded in order; further time of 15 days continued granted to make payment.

10.12.2025 Petitioners undertook to pay ₹40 lakhs by Assurance given 16.12.2025 and remaining ₹2.10 crores by 15.01.2026.

16.12.2025 Deadline for payment of ₹40 lakhs expired. Non-compliance This is a digitally signed order.

produced; petitioner no.1 appeared via VC substantive non- and assured payment of ₹2.10 crores by compliance 19.01.2026.

20.01.2026 Petitioners pleaded inability to deposit DDs Non-compliance or make payment as prior order was not uploaded.

20.01.2026 Court permitted deposit of ₹40 lakhs by Opportunity (Order) 21.01.2026 and directed payment of ₹2.10 granted crores by next date.

21.01.2026 Despite liberty granted, DDs were not Non-compliance deposited.

27.01.2026 Matter could not be taken up and was --

adjourned.

02.02.2026 Court informed that neither DDs had been Continued non-

deposited nor ₹2.10 crores paid, despite compliance repeated opportunities and assurances.

10. This Court further notes that despite repeated indulgence shown and multiple opportunities granted over an extended period of time, the applicant has persistently failed to honour his own assurances and comply with the directions of this Court. The plea now advanced, that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs is likely to be deposited by him, does not inspire confidence in view of the applicant's past conduct, which reveals a consistent pattern of non- compliance, and shifting stands, verging on contempt of the orders of the Court. Once this Court, by a detailed and reasoned order dated 02.02.2026, had declined the request for further time and directed the applicant to surrender by a specific deadline, the applicant cannot be permitted to reagitate the same plea by filing successive applications. Entertaining such This is a digitally signed order.

11. The applicant, having enjoyed the benefit of suspension of sentence for a considerable period on the strength of his assurances, cannot now seek further indulgence when he has failed to fulfil even the minimum obligations undertaken by him.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present application seeking extension of time to surrender. The present application is accordingly dismissed.

13. The applicant is directed to surrender forthwith before the concerned Jail Superintendent, in terms of the order dated 02.02.2026.

14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 04, 2026/A/TS This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/02/2026 at 20:40:14

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders