- The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case
- Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed clear displeasure
- The case stems from a May 2024 sessions court order that convicted Yadav in a cheque bounce matter
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited against actor Rajpal Yadav.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed clear displeasure at what she described as Yadav's shifting stands on repayment.
At one point, the Court cautioned, "Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you," highlighting frustration over inconsistencies between Yadav's submissions and his legal team's arguments.
The Court noted a contradiction in Yadav's stance - while he claimed willingness to pay, his counsel argued that, having already undergone imprisonment, he should not be required to settle the dues. Responding firmly, the judge remarked that if he was indeed ready to pay, there was no reason for the matter to continue, directing him to make the payment instead.
Yadav sought 30 days to arrange Rs 6 crore to resolve the dispute, but the Court refused to grant further time. "No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time," the judge stated, bringing settlement discussions to a halt.
About The Case
The case stems from a May 2024 sessions court order that convicted Yadav in a cheque bounce matter and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.
The Delhi High Court later suspended the sentence after his counsel assured that the dispute would be settled, even referring the matter to mediation. However, the Court observed that despite repeated assurances and adjournments, Yadav failed to honour his commitments.
It was noted that he did not deposit amounts he had previously assured, including Rs 2.5 crore he had sought to pay in instalments. In February 2026, the High Court directed him to surrender for non-compliance, and his plea seeking more time was rejected.
Yadav subsequently surrendered on February 5 and remained in custody until he secured an interim suspension of sentence after depositing Rs 1.5 crore.
During the latest hearing, counsel for the complainant, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, argued that Yadav could not evade liability merely because he had served his sentence.
He emphasised that completion of punishment does not extinguish financial liability, pointing out that Rs 7.75 crore still remained unpaid, although approximately Rs 2 crore had been paid earlier before the trial court.
The Court explored the possibility of a one-time settlement and suggested Rs 6 crore as a potential resolution figure. The complainant indicated willingness to accept the reduced amount. Appearing via video conference, Yadav assured the Court that he would comply with any payment directions, acknowledging his wrongdoing.
At the same time, he claimed to have suffered heavy financial losses, stating that he had already paid Rs 17 crore and sold five flats. He added that he was prepared to face imprisonment again if necessary.
