SC Directs Actor Rajpal Yadav To Deposit Rs 5 Crore For Exemption From Surrender In Cheque-Bounce Case

Got Question about the News? The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed actor Rajpal Yadav to deposit Rs 5 crore with its Registry by Wednesday as a condition for exempting him from surrendering to serve his sentence in a cheque-bounce case involving film producer-financier Murli Projects Pvt Ltd. The Court issued a conditional notice on Yadav's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's July 10 judgment upholding his conviction and three-month imprisonment in seven cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter will next be heard on September 15. A bench headed by the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order after Yadav's plea was orally mentioned. The Delhi High Court had required Yadav to surrender to serve the sentence, with September 10 being the deadline, after dismissing his criminal revisions against the conviction and sentence. The case arises from seven complaints filed by Murli Projects against Yadav, his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav and their film production company over dishonour of seven cheques issued in connection with financing for the film Ata Pata Lapata. According to the case records, Murli Projects advanced Rs 5 crore in 2010 for completion of the film. The parties subsequently entered into a series of agreements as the film's release was delayed, with the repayment amount being revised at different stages. The petition says the original transaction was an investment in the film rather than a loan and that the cheques were issued as security. Under the third supplementary agreement of August 2012, eight post-dated cheques were issued, with the repayment obligation linked to the film's release. The dispute escalated after Murli Projects approached the Delhi High Court in 2012 over the film and obtained an order restraining the petitioners from creating third-party interests in the film's rights. Seven complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were subsequently filed over dishonour of seven cheques. The petitioners, however, rely heavily on a subsequent consent agreement dated April 21, 2013, under which the parties agreed to a full and final settlement of Rs 10.40 crore, including Rs 40 lakh already paid through RTGS, and four fresh post-dated cheques were issued to secure the settlement. Yadav's plea claims that the earlier eight security cheques were required to be returned under this agreement, but Murli Projects instead proceeded with the dishonoured-cheque cases. Yadav has argued before the Supreme Court that the subsequent settlement rendered the original complaints unsustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gimpex Pvt Ltd v. Manoj Goel, he contends that once parties enter into a settlement, the original complaint concerning dishonour of the earlier cheques cannot continue and a fresh cause of action would arise only if the cheques issued under the settlement were dishonoured. The petition also relies on a subsequent Delhi High Court judgment applying the Gimpex principle, arguing that a settlement agreement subsumes the complaint relating to the initial cheque and prevents the complainant from reviving the original proceedings. The trial court had convicted Yadav and the other accused in April 2018 in all seven complaints. Yadav was initially sentenced to six months' imprisonment and fined Rs 1.60 crore in each case. The sentence was subsequently reduced, and on May 22, 2019, he was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1.35 crore in each of the seven cases, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction in 2024 and maintained the three-month sentence and Rs 1.35 crore fine in each case. The Delhi High Court, in its July 10, 2026 judgment, subsequently refused to interfere with the sentence. It also rejected Yadav's plea for probation, noting his conduct during the prolonged proceedings and repeated opportunities granted to him to settle the dispute. The High Court noted that Yadav had made several undertakings to pay the complainant but failed to honour them. It recorded that about Rs 2.25 crore had eventually been paid during the proceedings, but said Yadav later refused to make any further payment. The Court therefore held that he did not deserve the discretionary benefit of probation. The High Court nevertheless directed that the Rs 2.25 crore already deposited and released to Murli Projects be adjusted against the amount payable as fine. The Supreme Court's order on Tuesday now gives Yadav an interim reprieve from surrender, subject to his depositing Rs 5 crore with the Registry by September 9. The Supreme Court directed Rajpal Yadav to deposit Rs 5 crore with its Registry as a condition for exempting him from surrendering to serve his sentence in a cheque-bounce case. This order was passed after his plea challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment was orally mentioned. The Delhi High Court had upheld his conviction and three-month imprisonment in seven cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case originated from a Rs 5 crore advance provided by Murli Projects Pvt Ltd in 2010 for the completion of Rajpal Yadav's film "Ata Pata Lapata". The dispute escalated after seven cheques issued for repayment were dishonored, leading to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In its July 10, 2026 judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld Rajpal Yadav's conviction and three-month imprisonment in the cheque-bounce case, refusing to interfere with the sentence. The court also rejected his plea for probation, citing his conduct and failure to honor undertakings to pay the complainant.