उच्चतम न्यायालय ने पराक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम (Negotiable Instruments Act) की धारा 138 के तहत चेक बाउंस (cheque bounce) मामले में वित्तीय वादों का पालन न करने पर अभिनेता राजपाल यादव को सख्त फटकार लगाई और उन्हें अपना पासपोर्ट जमा करने का निर्देश दिया।
NEW DELHI — In a stern observation during court proceedings on October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India strongly reprimanded Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav for failing to adhere to his solemn undertakings regarding financial settlements in a long-standing cheque bounce dispute (Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd.).
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana expressed deep displeasure after learning that Yadav had failed to deposit the promised amount with the court registry within the stipulated timeframe.
Sharp Exchange in Open Court
During the hearing, Yadav’s legal counsel submitted a copy of a demand draft amounting to ₹50 lakh, explaining that the full deposit was taking longer to process due to bank holidays over the preceding days.
The Bench rejected this justification, highlighting that the court had granted a two-week extension on September 15, 2026, giving the defense ample time to fulfill its commitments. The complainant’s legal team argued that the non-compliance amounted to contempt of court and noted that the total outstanding financial obligation stood at approximately ₹7.5 crore.
When the actor’s counsel suggested that the complainant firm possessed substantial financial resources, the court issued a direct rebuke:
"They may be richer than you, but they are poor to the extent you have swindled them. This arrogance needs to be put in its right place. You should know when to open your mouth. Your place is in jail."
The Bench added that while it was inclined to dismiss the appeal outright due to repeated non-compliance, it refrained from doing so immediately to ensure the complainant firm retained a viable path toward recovering its funds.
Origins of the Legal Dispute
The conflict dates back to financial agreements connected to the production of a Hindi feature film directed by Yadav.
- Initial Transaction: Yadav and his spouse obtained ₹5 crore from M/S Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd.
- Subsequent Agreements: As execution timelines stretched, the parties entered into revised consent agreements. Under earlier terms, eight security cheques were issued.
- Cheque Dishonour: The complainant presented seven of these cheques for realization, all of which bounced upon presentation. This prompted formal criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Yadav’s defense contends that subsequent consent agreements rendered the earlier security cheques invalid, arguing that criminal proceedings under Section 138 were consequently non-maintainable.
Appellate History and Conviction
The dispute has navigated multiple levels of the judiciary over the past decade:
- Trial and Sessions Court: A magisterial court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, a judgment subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court.
- High Court Directives: The Delhi High Court later modified the sentence to three months' imprisonment. Although the High Court granted multiple adjournments and referred the matter to mediation to enable a financial settlement, it observed that Yadav consistently failed to meet agreed payment schedules.
- Surrender and Appeal: Following a direction to surrender in February 2026, Yadav served part of his term before receiving interim relief upon a partial deposit. He subsequently appealed the High Court order before the Supreme Court.
Current Status and Directives
The Supreme Court had previously granted Yadav interim protection from surrendering, contingent upon a substantial deposit into the registry. Addressing the latest shortfall, the Bench gave a final directive for the payment to be completed promptly, listing the compliance matter as the first item on the board for the following court session. The Court also ordered the actor to surrender his passport.
Description: The Supreme Court of India strongly reprimanded actor Rajpal Yadav on Monday for failing to deposit court-mandated funds in a long-running cheque bounce case (Rajpal Naurang Yadav v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt Ltd).
A bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected Yadav’s plea regarding bank holidays after his counsel presented a draft for only ₹50 lakh instead of the promised ₹5 crore.
When Yadav’s lawyer claimed the complainant was "not poor," Justice Bagchi sharply retorted, "Your place is in jail."
The dispute stems from a ₹5 crore loan for film production, where cheques issued by Yadav bounced. The court directed him to clear the dues immediately or face immediate revocation of relief.