The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim relief to actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav and his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav in a long-running cheque-bounce dispute, exempting them from surrendering to serve a three-month prison sentence on the condition that they deposit ₹5 crore with the court's Registry by Wednesday. The order gives the actor temporary reprieve just days before a September 10 surrender deadline set by the Delhi High Court.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued conditional notice on the petition after advocate-on-record Saurabh Trivedi orally mentioned the matter. The apex court has scheduled the next hearing for September 15, 2026, when it will consider the petition challenging the High Court's decision to uphold Yadav's conviction.
Financial Terms and High Court Conviction Details
The Supreme Court petition challenges a July 10, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had affirmed Yadav's conviction across seven separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ordering him to serve three months of simple imprisonment for each case, with all seven sentences running concurrently.
Under the High Court’s ruling, Yadav was ordered to pay ₹1.05 crore in each of the seven cases, comprising ₹1,04,75,000 as compensation to the complainant and ₹25,000 to the State. His wife, Radha Yadav, was separately directed to pay ₹5,51,380 to the complainant per case. The High Court recorded that ₹2.25 crore had already been paid and released to the complainant during ongoing legal proceedings, ordering that sum to be adjusted against the total outstanding fine and compensation.
The High Court explicitly denied Yadav's plea for probation, citing his record of unfulfilled undertakings made to the court and the complainant over years of litigation. While the High Court declined to modify the prison sentence, it granted the petitioners two months to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court and suspended execution of the sentence until September 10, setting the stage for Tuesday’s urgent Supreme Court intervention.
Genesis of the Dispute over Ata Pata Lapata
The legal confrontation stems from financial arrangements initiated in 2010 involving film producer-financier M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd. The company advanced ₹5 crore to assist Yadav in completing and releasing his directorial venture, Ata Pata Lapata.
As the film suffered release delays, the parties executed multiple supplementary agreements to revise repayment terms. Under a third supplementary agreement signed in August 2012, Yadav issued eight post-dated cheques to Murli Projects as security, with repayment obligations tied directly to the film's theatrical release.
Relations deteriorated in 2012 when Murli Projects approached the Delhi High Court and secured an order restraining Yadav and his production company from creating third-party rights in the film. After seven cheques presented for payment were dishonoured, Murli Projects filed seven separate criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Legal Defense and Settlement Arguments
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Yadav and his wife argue that the original Section 138 complaints are legally unsustainable due to a subsequent consent agreement dated April 21, 2013. Under that agreement, both parties agreed to a full and final settlement of ₹10.40 crore, which included ₹40 lakh paid via real-time gross settlement (RTGS) and four fresh post-dated cheques. Yadav contends the agreement required Murli Projects to return the original eight security cheques rather than press forward with prosecution.
Yadav’s legal counsel relies on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gimpex Pvt Ltd v. Manoj Goel, which established that once parties enter into a binding settlement agreement, original cheque-bounce complaints cannot proceed. According to the defense, a settlement subsumes initial grievances, meaning any fresh legal cause of action can only arise if cheques issued under the new settlement agreement are subsequently dishonoured.
Judicial History and Lower Court Timeline
The dispute has moved through multiple tiers of the judicial system over more than a decade. In April 2018, a Delhi trial court convicted Yadav and co-accused in all seven complaints, initially imposing a six-month prison term alongside a fine of ₹1.60 crore per case.
On May 22, 2019, the sentence was reduced to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1.35 crore per case, with sentences ordered to run concurrently. A Sessions Court upheld this conviction and modified penalty in 2024, leading Yadav to file criminal revision petitions before the Delhi High Court, which were ultimately dismissed in July 2026.
Pending Milestones and Registry Conditions
To maintain protection against arrest, Yadav and his co-petitioner must comply with the Supreme Court's explicit direction: “Subject to deposit of Rs.5 crores by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court by tomorrow, they are granted exemption from surrendering.” Failure to deposit the required ₹5 crore by Wednesday, September 9, would revoke the interim exemption and require the actor to surrender under the High Court's mandate.
If the deposit is completed within the stipulated timeline, the Supreme Court bench will resume hearing the petition on September 15, 2026. The upcoming hearing will determine whether the court issues a formal stay on the Delhi High Court judgment pending a complete review of the legal arguments regarding the 2013 settlement agreement.
