Delhi High Court Orders Bollywood Actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav To Surrender For Repeated Breach Of Cheque Bounce Settlement Undertakings
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, on February 2, directed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 4:00 PM on February 4, to serve the sentence imposed in multiple cheque dishonour matters linked to unpaid settlement amounts. The Court declined to extend further relief after recording repeated non-compliance with payment undertakings and fixed timelines given to secure release of sums due to the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. The Judge stated that the actor’s conduct “deserves to be deprecated” and ordered that the amounts already deposited with the Court be released to the complainant company on due acknowledgement.
The proceedings arose out of multiple criminal petitions and revision petitions filed by the petitioners, who stood convicted by the trial court in several cases arising from a commercial dispute with the respondent company. Post-conviction, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence on the ground that they wished to explore an amicable settlement with the complainant.
Upon the petitioners’ request, the sentence awarded by the trial court was initially suspended and the matter was referred to mediation. The suspension of sentence continued over an extended period based on repeated undertakings by the petitioners that settlement amounts would be paid to the respondent. The petitioners acknowledged their financial liability and assured the Court of payment in phased instalments.
Despite multiple opportunities and extensions granted over more than a year, the petitioners failed to adhere to the timelines assured before the Court. Partial amounts were promised through demand drafts, while substantial balances remained unpaid. Explanations offered for non-compliance included alleged typographical errors in demand drafts and non-uploading of earlier orders. The respondent opposed any further indulgence, pointing to persistent defaults and breach of undertakings. The matter culminated in the present order examining whether continued suspension of sentence was justified.
The Court observed that “the petitioners have not been able to comply with the last order as well as the earlier orders of this Court, and also with the settlement arrived at between the parties.” It recorded that “the petitioners have been granted several opportunities and that considerable leniency has been shown to them by this Court on multiple occasions.”
Recalling the history of the proceedings, the Court noted that “the sentence had been suspended as far back as 28.06.2024, on the undertaking of the petitioners that payment would be made,” yet “no payment had been made for the last one year.” The Court further recorded that it had earlier cautioned that failure to make payment would result in withdrawal of suspension of sentence.
While dealing with the assurances regarding deposit of demand drafts and instalment payments, the Court noted that “the said DDs were deposited only pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2025,” and that even thereafter, assurances continued without compliance.
The Court recorded that “The explanation now offered that there was a typographical error in the DDs does not inspire confidence, particularly when the petitioner no. 1 was aware of the alleged error in the DDs as early as 18.12.2025, yet continued to seek adjournments without complying with the substantive directions of this Court. Even after the order dated 20.01.2026, whereby indulgence was again shown and time was granted to deposit the DDs by 21.01.2026 and to pay the amount of ₹2.10 crores by 27.01.2026, the petitioner no. 1 has failed to comply,”
On the overall conduct, the Court observed that “the conduct of the petitioner no. 1 deserves to be deprecated,” and recorded that “despite repeatedly giving assurances and seeking indulgence of this Court, the petitioner no. 1 has failed to comply with the orders passed from time to time.” The Court also noted that the assurances were given “despite the fact that further time was being granted only on their instructions and assurances.”
The Court finally observed that “this Court finds no justification to continue the indulgence granted to the petitioner no. 1 earlier,” particularly in view of admitted liability and repeated breach of undertakings.
The Court directed that “the amount already deposited pursuant to earlier orders with the learned Registrar General of this Court, is directed to be released in favour of the respondent no. 1, on appropriate receipt and acknowledgement,” while recording that this direction was being issued “keeping in view the fact that the petitioners stand convicted by the learned Trial Court and that petitioner no. 1 was required to make payment of ₹1.35 crores in each case (seven cases, in total).”
“The petitioner no. 1 is directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent by 04.02.2026, 4:00 PM, to serve the sentence awarded to him by the learned Trial Court,” clarifying that “this limited indulgence is granted at the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.”
“The matter be listed on 05.02.2026, seeking compliance from the concerned Jail Superintendent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abhijat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harshvardhan Gupta and Mr. Satyam Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Sh. Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Numbers: CRL.M.C. 4870/2024 along with connected matters
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
