Supreme Court Stays Surrender Order for Rajpal Yadav
The Supreme Court of India has granted a temporary reprieve to actor Rajpal Yadav from surrendering in multiple cheque bounce cases, contingent upon depositing ₹5 crore with the Court’s Registry by September 9. The case is formally known as Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt Ltd.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued a conditional notice regarding Yadav’s appeal against his conviction and three-month imprisonment sentence previously handed down by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court is set to hear the matter again on September 15.
Background of the Cheque Bounce Case
The controversy revolves around a financial transaction amounting to ₹5 crore between Yadav and his wife, and a private entity, Murli Projects, for a film project. Due to delays in the film’s production, the parties executed four agreements over time. During the third agreement, Yadav issued eight security cheques to Murli Projects. This agreement was later replaced by a fourth agreement, a consent agreement dated April 21, 2013.
Yadav’s legal plea asserts that this consent agreement necessitated the return of the initial eight security cheques and the issuance of four new cheques, each valued at ₹10 crore. However, Yadav contends that Murli Projects failed to return the original cheques, subsequently presenting seven, which resulted in dishonour and led to criminal complaints against him and his wife.
Legal Proceedings and Convictions
In May 2024, a sessions court found Yadav guilty, sentencing him to six months in jail. Although the Delhi High Court later suspended this sentence, it noted that Yadav failed to fulfill his payment assurances, including a ₹2.5 crore payment he proposed to make in installments. This led to a directive for Yadav to surrender to jail authorities by February 2026 for non-compliance.
More Read
Yadav surrendered on February 5 and was subsequently granted interim suspension of his sentence after depositing ₹1.5 crore with the complainant. Despite this, due to his failure to clear the remaining dues, the High Court sentenced him to an additional three months of imprisonment.
Arguments and Legal Representation
Yadav’s appeal to the Supreme Court argues that the consent agreement rendered the previously issued cheques invalid, thus nullifying the basis for the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. His legal representation is led by Advocate Saurabh Trivedi.
The [complete order] from the Supreme Court is available for review.
