Back
Exempts Rajpal Yadav from Surrender in Cheque Bounce Cases for Rs 5 Crore
The on Tuesday granted actor Rajpal Yadav an from surrendering to serve his three-month in seven cheque bounce cases, subject to the condition that he deposits ₹5 crore with the Court’s Registry by the following day. The order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana after the petitions filed by Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, were orally mentioned by their counsel.
The Court issued notice on the challenging the ’s July 10 judgment, which had upheld Yadav’s under , and directed that the matter be listed for final hearing on . “Subject to deposit of Rs.5 crores by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court by tomorrow, they are granted ,” the Bench ordered.
The development marks the latest turn in a protracted legal battle arising from a ₹5 crore financing arrangement for Yadav’s unreleased film Ata Pata Lapata , which later spiralled into multiple .
The Origin of the Dispute
The case traces back to , when advanced ₹5 crore to Yadav and his production company for the completion of the film. As the film’s release was delayed, the parties entered into a series of revising repayment terms. Under a third supplementary agreement in , eight were issued, with repayment linked to the film’s release. However, Murli Projects moved the in 2012 over rights to the film and obtained an order restraining the petitioners from creating third-party interests.
Thereafter, seven of the eight cheques were dishonoured, leading to separate complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. The convicted Yadav and the other accused in , sentencing him initially to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1.60 crore per case. On appeal, the sentence was reduced in to three months’ and a fine of ₹1.35 crore in each case, with the sentences .
The upheld the in . The , in its judgment, dismissed Yadav’s criminal revisions and refused to interfere with the sentence, while also rejecting his plea for .
High Court’s Stinging Observations
The High Court’s decision was notable for its sharp criticism of Yadav’s conduct throughout the proceedings. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor,” underscoring the Court’s frustration with repeated breaches of given to the court.
The Court noted that despite multiple opportunities, Yadav had failed to honour his commitments to the complainant. It recorded that out of the total dues, only about ₹2.25 crore had been paid and released to Murli Projects during the proceedings. The High Court also referred to a statement attributed to Yadav, wherein he allegedly said he would “go to jail five more times” rather than pay the complainant. The Court treated this as evidence of his unwillingness to comply with legal obligations and disentitled him from the discretionary benefit of .
At an earlier hearing in April, Justice Sharma had expressed strong displeasure at inconsistencies between Yadav’s statements and the submissions made by his counsel regarding willingness to settle. “Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” the Court had remarked.
The High Court directed that Yadav undergo three months’ in each of the seven cases, with all sentences running concurrently. He was also directed to pay ₹1.05 crore in each case, comprising ₹1,04,75,000 as to the complainant and ₹25,000 to the State. His wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, was ordered to pay ₹5,51,380 in each case. The Court adjusted the already paid ₹2.25 crore against the outstanding fine.
’s
Yadav’s special leave petition before the challenges the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the , and its rejection of . The petition primarily relies on a subsequent dated , under which the parties agreed to a of ₹10.40 crore. According to Yadav, four fresh were issued under this settlement, and the earlier eight were required to be returned. He argues that the complainant instead proceeded with the dishonour cases on the original cheques, which should have been subsumed by the settlement.
Citing the ’s judgment in , the petition contends that once parties enter into a settlement, the original complaint concerning dishonour of the earlier cheques cannot continue, and a fresh arises only if the cheques issued under the settlement are dishonoured. Yadav also relies on a subsequent judgment applying the Gimpex principle.
Despite these arguments, the did not stay the sentence or grant immediate relief without a condition. Instead, it imposed a substantial deposit of ₹5 crore as a precondition for exemption from surrender. This amount is roughly equivalent to the principal advanced in , though the total financial liability — including fines and ordered by the High Court — far exceeds that figure.
Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead
The interim order reflects the ’s cautious approach in cases where the convicted person has a history of non-compliance with court . By requiring a large upfront deposit, the Court has effectively ensured that the complainant’s interests are protected while Yadav pursues his challenge. The amount will remain with the Registry pending the final outcome.
The case also highlights the continuing legal debate over the effect of a settlement agreement on pending cheque bounce complaints under Section 138. The Gimpex principle, which holds that a subsequent settlement extinguishes the original , has been applied by various High Courts, but its applicability depends on the facts of each case, including whether the settlement cheques themselves were honoured. Here, the parties dispute the fate of the cheques issued under the 2013 .
For legal practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary burden on accused persons who seek to rely on settlements to defeat dishonour complaints. It also underscores the judiciary’s willingness to impose stringent conditions for when a convicted person has repeatedly breached earlier commitments.
The ’s next hearing on , will determine whether the conditional exemption continues until the final disposal of the special leave petition. Meanwhile, the ₹5 crore deposit stands as an interim measure, bridging the gap between Yadav’s liberty and the complainant’s claim for justice.
Conclusion
The ’s order provides Rajpal Yadav with a temporary shield from imprisonment, but at a steep financial price. The underscores the message that actors — or any litigant — cannot treat judicial lightly. As the legal saga moves forward, the central question remains: can a subsequent settlement override the criminal consequences of earlier bounced cheques? Until September 2026, the answer will be deferred, with ₹5 crore serving as a placeholder for the promise of compliance that the actor has yet to fully keep.
