The Delhi High Court has directed actor Rajpal Yadav to surrender before prison authorities after finding that he repeatedly failed to honour payment commitments linked to a cheque bounce conviction dating back to 2024.
Yadav had approached the High Court to challenge a sessions court ruling from May 2024 that held him guilty and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment. While his sentence was earlier put on hold, the reprieve was tied to his promise to clear dues owed to a film production company—an assurance the court said remained unfulfilled.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took a stern view of the actor’s conduct, noting that Yadav had sought adjournment after adjournment while assuring the court that payments would be made and a settlement reached. Those assurances, the court observed, never translated into action.
The judge rejected Yadav’s explanation that a technical error in preparing a demand draft had stalled payment, pointing out that no meaningful effort was made to correct the mistake. The court also recorded that Yadav himself had proposed to clear ₹2.5 crore in two tranches—₹40 lakh by mid-December 2025 and the remaining ₹2.1 crore by mid-January. Neither amount, the court noted, had been paid even by the time of the latest hearing.
Calling the situation “shocking,” the court said it had been informed that no demand drafts were deposited and no substantial payment released, despite repeated opportunities.
Yadav’s counsel acknowledged that the actor had been given multiple chances. When another assurance of payment was offered during the hearing, the court refused to entertain it, citing the pattern of non-compliance.
With that, the High Court directed that the funds already deposited be released to the production house and ordered Yadav to surrender before the concerned jail superintendent by February 4. The case will be taken up again on February 5.
The dispute traces back to a cheque issued to finance a film project that failed commercially, leading to financial losses. Although mediation was attempted and the original sentence suspended to facilitate settlement, the court concluded that Yadav had exhausted the court’s patience by repeatedly breaching his undertakings.
Given the history of missed deadlines and broken promises, the court said there was no justification left to extend further leniency.
