Actor Rajpal Yadav’s long-running cheque bounce case has taken a serious turn, with the Delhi High Court making sharp observations while upholding his conviction. Refusing to grant the actor any relief, the court remarked that “Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor,” stressing that judicial proceedings cannot be altered according to a litigant’s changing decisions.
The High Court upheld Rajpal Yadav’s conviction in seven cheque dishonour cases and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. The court also imposed a hefty fine and refused his request for probation, saying his conduct throughout the legal proceedings did not deserve any special consideration.
The case dates back to the financing of Rajpal Yadav’s 2012 directorial film Ata Pata Lapata. According to court records, Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. had provided funds to the production company, while Rajpal Yadav and his wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, acted as guarantors. When the loan was not repaid and several post-dated cheques were dishonoured, the company filed multiple complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that Rajpal Yadav had been given several opportunities over the years to settle the matter. Even after the court indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with his conviction, it temporarily suspended his sentence because he had expressed a willingness to repay the complainant and resolve the dispute amicably.
According to the judgment, Rajpal Yadav repeatedly requested more time to arrange the money. On several occasions, both he and his senior counsel assured the court that the dues would be cleared. Trusting these assurances, the court granted repeated adjournments and extended protection by keeping his sentence suspended.
However, the promised settlement never materialised. Despite multiple opportunities spread over several years, the actor failed to honour the undertakings he had given before the court. This eventually led the High Court to direct him to surrender before the jail authorities. Although he later made certain payments, the dispute remained unresolved.
One of the strongest observations in the judgment came after the court recorded that Rajpal Yadav had stated he “would rather go to jail five times than return the money.”
Responding to this, Justice Sharma observed that while a person may choose imprisonment instead of repayment, such a decision cannot override the law or erase commitments made before a court.
The judge remarked that the law cannot be changed according to an individual’s convenience, adding that courts function on established legal principles and expect every litigant to act fairly and respect the judicial process.
The High Court also refused Rajpal Yadav’s plea seeking release under the Probation of Offenders Act, observing that his conduct throughout the proceedings did not justify the discretionary benefit of probation.
In addition, the court dismissed attempts by Rajpal Yadav and his wife to challenge their conviction after a delay of more than five years. Their explanation—that they believed their conviction had already been challenged and had relied on incorrect legal advice—was rejected by the court, which found the reasons unconvincing.
While refusing to interfere with the conviction or sentence, the High Court noted that Rajpal Yadav had deposited an additional ₹2.25 crore during the proceedings, which has already been released to the complainant company. However, the payment was not enough to alter the court’s final decision.
With the latest ruling, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed Rajpal Yadav’s conviction, making it clear that repeated assurances without compliance cannot influence judicial decisions. The actor may now choose to challenge the verdict before a higher court if he decides to pursue further legal remedies.
