The Delhi High Court has sentenced Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav to three months of simple imprisonment in connection with a long-running cheque bounce dispute, concluding that he repeatedly failed to honour commitments made before the Court to settle his financial obligations.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the verdict in seven complaint cases filed by Murli Projects Private Limited. While imposing a three-month jail term in each case, the Court directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.
In addition to the prison sentence, the Court ordered Yadav to pay a fine of ₹1.05 crore in each of the seven cases. The order specifies that ₹1,04,75,000 from each fine will be released to the complainant as compensation, while ₹25,000 in every case will be deposited with the State. If the fines are not paid, Yadav will have to undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment.
The Court also imposed a fine exceeding ₹5.51 lakh in each case on Yadav’s wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav.
During the proceedings, the High Court noted that Yadav had already deposited ₹2.25 crore, which will be adjusted against the compensation payable to the complainant.
While pronouncing the sentence, Justice Sharma observed that the actor had been granted several opportunities to resolve the dispute and fulfil the assurances repeatedly given before the Court. Despite those chances, the promised payments were not made.
The judge remarked that both Yadav and his legal team had made repeated statements expressing their willingness to settle the matter, but those undertakings remained unfulfilled.
At the same time, the Court granted Yadav two months to approach a higher court if he wishes to challenge the judgment.
The litigation traces back to May 2024, when a sessions court convicted the actor in a cheque dishonour case and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. That sentence was later suspended by the High Court after Yadav assured the Court that the dispute would be amicably resolved. The matter was subsequently referred for mediation.
Despite multiple adjournments and settlement discussions, the promised payments were not forthcoming. The High Court observed that Yadav failed to deposit amounts he had undertaken to pay, including ₹2.5 crore that he had sought permission to clear through instalments.
In February 2026, the Court directed him to surrender before jail authorities after finding that its earlier directions had not been complied with. His request for additional time to surrender was rejected, following which he surrendered on February 5.
Yadav was later granted interim suspension of his sentence after depositing ₹1.5 crore with the complainant. However, the remaining amount was not paid despite further undertakings, prompting the High Court to impose the present sentence and financial penalties.
