​​​​​​​New Delhi, September 8:The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed actor Rajpal Yadav to deposit Rs 5 crore with its Registry by Wednesday as a condition for exempting him from surrendering to serve his sentence in a cheque-bounce case involving film producer and financier Murli Projects Pvt Ltd.

The apex court issued a conditional notice on Yadav’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s July 10 judgment, which upheld his conviction and three-month imprisonment in seven cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 15.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Justice Joymalya Bagchi and comprising Justice V. Mohana passed the order after Yadav’s plea was orally mentioned before the court.

The Delhi High Court had directed Yadav to surrender by September 10 to serve his sentence after dismissing his criminal revision petitions challenging his conviction and sentence.

The case stems from seven complaints filed by Murli Projects against Yadav, his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav and their film production company over the alleged dishonour of seven cheques issued in connection with financing for the filmAta Pata Lapata.

According to the case records, Murli Projects advanced Rs 5 crore in 2010 for completion of the film. As the film’s release was delayed, the parties entered into several agreements, with the repayment terms being revised at different stages.

Yadav’s plea before the Supreme Court maintains that the original transaction was an investment in the film rather than a loan and that the cheques were issued as security. Under a third supplementary agreement executed in August 2012, eight post-dated cheques were issued, with the repayment obligation linked to the film’s release.

The dispute intensified after Murli Projects approached the Delhi High Court in 2012 in connection with the film and obtained an order restraining the petitioners from creating third-party interests in its rights. Subsequently, seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed following the dishonour of seven cheques.

Yadav and the other petitioners, however, have placed significant reliance on a subsequent consent agreement dated April 21, 2013. Under the agreement, the parties agreed to a full and final settlement of Rs 10.40 crore, including Rs 40 lakh that had already been paid through RTGS. Four fresh post-dated cheques were also issued as security for the settlement.

Yadav’s plea contends that the earlier eight security cheques were required to be returned under the settlement agreement. Instead, Murli Projects continued with the cheque-bounce proceedings.

Before the Supreme Court, Yadav has argued that the subsequent settlement rendered the original complaints unsustainable. Relying on the apex court’s judgment inGimpex Pvt Ltd v. Manoj Goel, he has contended that once parties enter into a settlement, a complaint relating to dishonour of the earlier cheques cannot continue. According to his argument, a fresh cause of action would arise only if the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement were subsequently dishonoured.

The petition also cites a later Delhi High Court judgment that applied the principle laid down inGimpex, arguing that a settlement agreement subsumes the complaint concerning the original cheque and prevents the complainant from reviving the earlier proceedings.

The trial court convicted Yadav and the other accused in April 2018 in all seven complaints. He was initially sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and fined Rs 1.60 crore in each case.

The sentence was subsequently reduced. On May 22, 2019, Yadav was sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and fined Rs 1.35 crore in each of the seven cases, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.

The Sessions Court upheld the conviction in 2024 and maintained the three-month imprisonment and Rs 1.35 crore fine in each case.

The Delhi High Court, in its July 10, 2026 judgment, subsequently declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence. It also rejected Yadav’s plea seeking probation, taking note of his conduct during the prolonged proceedings and the repeated opportunities he had been given to resolve the dispute.

The High Court observed that Yadav had given several undertakings to make payments to the complainant but had failed to honour them. It also noted that approximately Rs 2.25 crore had been paid towards the outstanding amount.