The Delhi High Court is set to deliver its verdict today in veteran Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav’s long-running cheque bounce case, bringing a legal battle that has stretched for more than a decade closer to its conclusion. The judgment, which will be pronounced by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, concerns a batch of criminal miscellaneous and revision petitions filed by Yadav and his wife against their earlier conviction and six-month prison sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The case traces its roots back to 2010, when Rajpal Yadav borrowed Rs 5 crore from M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. to finance his ambitious production and directorial venture, Ata Pata Laapata. Released in 2012, the film failed to perform at the box office, leaving the actor struggling with mounting financial obligations. Over the years, interest, penalties, and legal expenses significantly increased the liability, taking the outstanding amount to nearly Rs 9 crore across seven connected cheque dishonour cases.
The dispute gained renewed attention earlier this year after the Delhi High Court directed the actor to surrender before the Tihar Jail authorities in February 2026. The court expressed dissatisfaction over Yadav’s repeated failure to comply with payment commitments despite receiving several opportunities to settle the dues. Observing a consistent pattern of missed deadlines, the court ordered him to undergo the sentence imposed in the cheque bounce cases.
However, Yadav later received interim relief after depositing Rs 2.5 crore. The payment enabled him to secure a temporary suspension of his sentence and obtain bail while the High Court continued hearing his challenge against the conviction. Before reserving its judgment on April 2, the High Court made repeated efforts to encourage both parties to reach an out-of-court settlement. The complainant company eventually agreed to accept Rs 6 crore as a one-time full and final settlement, reducing its original claim in an attempt to resolve the dispute amicably.
Despite the concession, Rajpal Yadav declined the proposal. Appearing before the court through video conferencing, the actor stated that he was facing severe financial hardship. He informed the bench that he had already sold personal properties to arrange payments and had made substantial repayments over the years, making it impossible for him to raise the settlement amount being sought.
During the proceedings, counsel for the complainant opposed any further relief for the actor. Advocate Avneet Singh Sikka argued that Yadav’s revision petition had been filed after an unexplained delay of 1,894 days and contended that even serving a prison sentence would not extinguish his financial liability. According to the complainant, the outstanding dues remain legally recoverable regardless of the sentence served.
On the other hand, Yadav’s lawyer, Bhaskar Upadhyay, urged the court to consider the merits of the present case rather than the procedural mistakes committed by previous legal representatives. He requested the bench not to let earlier lapses prejudice the actor’s right to seek relief.
With the judgment expected today, all eyes are on the Delhi High Court. The verdict will decide whether Rajpal Yadav must return to prison or whether he will receive an alternative legal remedy in one of Bollywood’s most closely watched financial disputes.