The Delhi High Court refused to grant more time to actor Rajpal Yadav to pay Rs 6 crore in a cheque bounce case and reserved its judgment. The Court criticised his changing stance on payment and warned against seeking judicial leniency out of weakness.
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. The case has been going on for a long time and the Court expressed strong displeasure over the changing stands taken by the actor regarding payment of dues.
During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made a strong oral observation and said,
“Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,”
after the Court noticed contradictions between Rajpal Yadav’s statements and the submissions made by his lawyers.
The Court pointed out that on one hand Yadav was saying he was ready to pay the money, but on the other hand his lawyers were arguing that since he had already gone to jail, he should not be asked to pay the amount again. The judge expressed confusion over this contradictory stand and said,
“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,”.
Rajpal Yadav then requested the Court to grant him 30 days’ time to pay ₹6 crore and settle the dispute, but the Court refused to grant more time and said,
“No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time,”.
The case dates back to a cheque bounce complaint filed by the company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the actor failed to clear dues. In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted Rajpal Yadav and sentenced him to six months in jail in the cheque bounce case.
Later, the Delhi High Court suspended his sentence after his lawyer assured the Court that the matter would be settled and payment would be made. The case was also referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre to explore settlement.
However, the High Court later noted that despite several opportunities, repeated assurances and multiple adjournments taken for settlement, the actor failed to make the promised payments.
The Court also recorded that Yadav did not deposit the amounts he had earlier assured the Court he would pay, including ₹2.5 crore which he had sought permission to pay in instalments.
In February 2026, the High Court directed Rajpal Yadav to surrender before jail authorities for not complying with earlier court orders. His plea seeking more time to surrender was rejected.
He finally surrendered on February 5 and remained in jail until the High Court later granted interim suspension of sentence after he deposited ₹1.5 crore with the complainant company.
During the latest hearing, counsel for the complainant company, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, argued that Rajpal Yadav had effectively accepted his conviction and could not escape liability just because he had already undergone the jail sentence. He argued that completing punishment does not cancel financial liability and the money still has to be paid. He told the Court,
The counsel yesterday said that
“since I was given maximum punishment I cannot be asked to pay. Answer lies in CPC. Not enough reason to extinguish liability that punishment is complete. They say that because a consent decree was passed the third supplementary’s agreement was subsumed. It is their own admission that they have not paid ₹10 crores,”.
The complainant’s counsel further informed the Court that the company had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the payment was not made. He said that out of the total amount, approximately ₹7.75 crore was still unpaid, although around ₹2 crore had been paid earlier before the trial court.
During the hearing, the Court also tried to settle the matter and asked the complainant whether a reduced amount would be accepted as a one-time settlement. The complainant’s lawyer said he had instructions from the company and was willing to consider a settlement proposal.
Rajpal Yadav appeared before the Court through video conferencing and told the Court that he would follow any order passed regarding payment.
He said,
“No problem that I was punished for my wrong. Whatever is directed by the judge about payment, I will follow,”.
However, he also claimed that he had suffered heavy financial losses and had already paid a huge amount. He told the Court,
“They have taken ₹17 crore from me. My five flats have had to be sold. I am ready to go to court again. I am not emotional, send me to jail five more times,”.
The Court then suggested that the matter could be settled if Rs 6 crore was paid within a short time and the complainant showed willingness to accept that amount. However, when Rajpal Yadav asked for 30 days to arrange the money, the Court refused to grant more time. Since the settlement could not be finalized, the Delhi High Court ultimately reserved the matter for judgment.
This case highlights that in cheque bounce cases, even if a person undergoes jail sentence, the financial liability does not end and the payment still has to be made. The final judgment of the Delhi High Court is now awaited in the matter.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rajpal Yadav
