Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the conviction and modified the sentence previously imposed by the sessions court. The court directed Rajpal Yadav to pay Rs 1.05 crore to the complainant in each of the seven cheque bounce cases. It also ordered him to pay Rs 1.04 lakh and Rs 75,000 to the complainant, along with Rs 25,000 to the State.
The court further directed Yadav’s wife, Radha Yadav, to pay Rs 5,51,380 to the complainant in each case. It clarified that the Rs 2.25 crore already deposited by the actor would be adjusted against the final amount payable.
The legal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after cheques issued by Yadav were dishonoured.
According to court records, Rajpal Yadav had borrowed Rs 5 crore from Delhi-based Murli Projects Private Limited in 2010 to finance his directorial debut, Ata Pata Laapata. The film was released in 2012 but failed commercially, leaving the actor unable to repay the loan and resulting in a prolonged legal dispute.
In 2018, a magistrate court convicted Rajpal Yadav and his wife, Radha Yadav, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after seven cheques issued by them were dishonoured. The actor was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment. The conviction was later upheld by a sessions court, following which Yadav challenged the order before the Delhi High Court. By 2024, the outstanding amount had reportedly increased to Rs 9 crore.
In May 2024, the sessions court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The Delhi High Court later suspended the sentence after his counsel assured the court that the dispute would be resolved. The matter was then referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
However, the High Court noted that despite repeated assurances, several adjournments, and commitments to deposit Rs 2.5 crore in installments, Yadav failed to comply with the agreed terms.
In February 2026, the High Court directed the actor to surrender after he failed to follow its orders. His request for additional time was rejected, and he surrendered on February 5.
He was later granted interim suspension of sentence after depositing Rs 1.5 crore with the complainant. The latest order reaffirmed the court’s decision that repeated failures to fulfil settlement commitments cannot override legal obligations arising from dishonoured cheques.
About The Author
Comment List