Cheque Bounce Case Against Rajpal Yadav: Delhi High Court Reserves Order
Delhi High Court reserves judgment in cheque bounce case against actor Rajpal Yadav after settlement talks fail
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited against Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, after sharp exchanges over his shifting stand on repayment of dues.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while hearing the matter, expressed strong displeasure at inconsistencies between Yadav’s statements and submissions made by his counsel regarding willingness to settle the dispute.
“Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” the Court remarked during the hearing, underscoring its frustration over repeated delays and unfulfilled assurances.
The case arises from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the complainant company after alleged non-payment of substantial dues. The dispute has seen prolonged litigation, multiple adjournments, and failed settlement attempts.
During the hearing, the Court pointed out contradictions in Yadav’s position. “You are saying you are willing to pay, but your lawyers are saying that since you have already gone to jail, you will not pay. If you are willing to pay, then why am I hearing the matter? Make the payment,” Justice Sharma observed.
Yadav sought 30 days’ time to pay ₹6 crore and settle the dispute, but the Court declined the request. “No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time,” the judge said, ultimately reserving the verdict after settlement talks failed to conclude.
The matter has a significant procedural history. In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment in the cheque bounce case. The Delhi High Court later suspended his sentence after his counsel assured that the dues would be settled, and the dispute was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
However, the Court later noted repeated non-compliance with payment assurances. It observed that Yadav had failed to deposit amounts he had undertaken to pay, including ₹2.5 crore which he had sought to pay in instalments.
In February 2026, the High Court directed Yadav to surrender for failing to comply with its orders. His plea seeking extension of time was rejected, following which he surrendered on February 5. He was subsequently granted interim suspension of sentence after depositing ₹1.5 crore with the complainant.
During the latest hearing, counsel for the complainant, Advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, argued that Yadav could not escape liability merely because he had already undergone punishment. He submitted that approximately ₹7.75 crore remained unpaid, though around ₹2 crore had been paid earlier.
Sikka also contended that completion of sentence does not extinguish civil liability, and that the complainant was justified in initiating proceedings after repeated defaults.
The Court explored the possibility of a one-time settlement and indicated that the dispute could be resolved if ₹6 crore was paid within a short timeframe. The complainant expressed willingness to consider such a proposal.
Appearing via video conference, Yadav told the Court that he would comply with any payment directions. “No problem that I was punished for my wrong. Whatever is directed by the judge about payment, I will follow,” he said. At the same time, he claimed to have suffered heavy financial losses, stating that he had already paid ₹17 crore and sold multiple properties.
Despite these submissions, the Court remained unconvinced, particularly in light of past conduct and unmet commitments. With no agreement reached between the parties, the Court reserved the matter for judgment.
Previously, on March 18, the Court had extended the interim suspension of sentence granted to actor Rajpal Yadav in a cheque bounce case till the next date of hearing on April 1. The Court had made it clear that no adjournment would be granted on April 1 and laid down two options for the actor. It said that if Yadav's counsel chooses to argue the main petition, submissions must strictly adhere to the time limit and remain confined to points already raised in previous hearings. Alternatively, he may present a concrete proposal to settle the monetary dispute with the respondent.
Notably, on February 12, the high court had come down sharply on the Bollywood actor, observing that his incarceration was a direct consequence of repeatedly failing to honour commitments made to the court to pay dues to the complainant. “You have gone to jail because you didn’t honour your own commitment,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had remarked while hearing Yadav’s bail application, which was moved on the ground of a wedding in his family.
It had noted that on at least two dozen occasions, Yadav had made statements before the court assuring that he would clear the outstanding amount, but had failed to follow through each time. Justice Sharma had pointed out that both Yadav and his counsel had earlier assured the court that the payment would be made directly to the complainant, whereas the present stand was that the money would now be deposited before the court. “Make up your mind,” Justice Sharma had told Yadav’s counsel, indicating the court’s displeasure at the shifting stands taken by the actor’s legal team.
The case relates to Yadav’s failure to repay a loan taken from the complainant, despite multiple undertakings given before the trial court and appellate forums. After continued non-compliance with court directions and failure to honour settlement assurances, Yadav was taken into custody to serve his sentence. Yadav surrendered to authorities on January 12, 2026, after a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in connection with a cheque bounce and recovery case. Following his surrender, Yadav was taken into judicial custody, where he remains as the High Court hears his bail application.
Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Hearing Date: April 2, 2026