Rajpal Yadav and Wife Seek Supreme Court Relief in Cheque Dishonour Case

In a pivotal legal battle, actor Rajpal Yadav and his wife have approached the Supreme Court to contest their convictions in multiple cheque dishonour cases. The court has temporarily exempted them from surrendering, provided they deposit ₹5 crore. The couple argues that a subsequent consent agreement should nullify the original complaints, as they claim new cheques were issued. The Delhi High Court had previously upheld their convictions but reduced their sentences and fines. This ongoing case raises significant questions about legal agreements and enforcement in cheque dishonour disputes.

By Narendra Chaudhary Sep 8, 2026, 20:00 IST

Supreme Court to Hear Rajpal Yadav's Plea

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has agreed to review a petition from actor Rajpal Yadav and his spouse, contesting the Delhi High Court's ruling that upheld their convictions in several cheque dishonour cases. The court has granted them temporary relief from surrendering, contingent upon a deposit of ₹5 crore.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, accepted the special leave petitions after they were presented in court, issuing a conditional notice that is set to be addressed by September 15.

The Supreme Court's order stated, "Subject to the deposit of ₹5 crore by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court by tomorrow, they are granted exemption from surrendering."

The petitions challenge the Delhi High Court's decision, which confirmed their convictions in seven cases of cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

On July 10, the Delhi High Court upheld Yadav's conviction but reduced his sentence from six months to three months for each case, also lowering the fine from ₹1.60 crore to ₹1.05 crore per case, with all sentences to run concurrently.

The High Court considered the payments Yadav had made to the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, during the ongoing legal proceedings. The Supreme Court petitions argue that the High Court overlooked a subsequent consent agreement between the parties, which allegedly stipulated the return of the original security cheques and the issuance of new ones.

The petitioners referenced a Supreme Court ruling in M/s Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, asserting that the new agreement should have concluded the original complaint proceedings, rendering the disputed cheques invalid.

According to the petition, the parties had entered into four agreements related to a film project by Yadav, as the earlier agreements were not fulfilled on time.

The petitioners claim that under the fourth agreement, dated April 21, 2013, the eight security cheques from the previous agreement were to be returned, and four new cheques worth ₹10 crore were issued. They allege that the respondent did not return the original cheques and instead pursued legal action after seven of them were dishonoured.

They further contend that the trial and appellate courts did not adequately consider the implications of the subsequent consent agreement, arguing that the cheques at the heart of the complaints were no longer enforceable.

Previously, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petitions from Yadav and his wife, citing an extraordinary delay of 1,894 days in challenging the conviction and refusing to alter the lower courts' findings. The High Court noted that despite numerous chances for an amicable resolution, Yadav failed to comply with court undertakings.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, "If a litigant prefers imprisonment over adhering to multiple court undertakings, that is their choice. The law cannot be rewritten at the whim of an actor, nor can legal positions shift with every strategic change."

The High Court reduced the total fine to ₹7.35 crore across the seven cases, directing that ₹1,04,75,000 be paid to M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, with ₹25,000 allocated to the State.

Additionally, the High Court suspended the modified sentence for two months to allow the petitioners to explore available legal remedies.