Bollywood
Delhi High Court Orders Rajpal Yadav to Surrender in Cheque Bounce Case
The Delhi High Court has taken a firm stand against Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav, refusing to recall its earlier order directing him to surrender to the Jail Superintendent at Tihar in connection with his conviction in cheque-dishonour cases. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s message that celebrity status cannot be a shield against compliance with the law.
Court Rejects Plea for Leniency
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while hearing the matter on Thursday, expressed strong disapproval of the actor’s repeated failure to comply with court directions. The court categorically stated that it cannot create “special circumstances” for individuals based on their profession or public standing.
“A court of law looks only through the prism of equality before law,” the judge observed, adding that while some leniency had already been shown, it could not be extended indefinitely in the face of continued non-compliance. The court stressed that the interests of justice require a balance between compassion and discipline.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from multiple cheque bounce cases filed by M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., in which Rajpal Yadav was convicted. Over time, the actor had given several undertakings to the court, assuring payment of settlement amounts to the complainant. However, despite repeated opportunities, these commitments were not honoured.
On February 2, the High Court had come down heavily on Yadav’s conduct, describing it as deserving “deprecation,” and directed him to surrender by the stipulated date. The court noted that repeated breaches of undertakings erode the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
“Law Rewards Compliance, Not Contempt”
During the latest hearing, Rajpal Yadav’s counsel submitted that the actor could not surrender at the scheduled time as he was attempting to arrange funds to pay the complainant company. It was argued that he reached Delhi only after the deadline and requested that his plea be treated as a mercy petition.
The court, however, rejected this explanation, stating that nothing prevented the actor from complying with a clear judicial order. Justice Sharma observed that such conduct reflects “scant respect for law,” warning that those who fail to honour court directions should not expect favourable treatment.
“The law rewards its compliance, not its contempt,” the court remarked, adding that continuous leniency in such cases would send a dangerous signal that court orders can be repeatedly disregarded without consequence.
Message Beyond the Case
Legal observers say the ruling sends a broader message on accountability, particularly in cheque dishonour cases that often drag on due to delayed compliance. By refusing to recall its surrender order, the High Court reinforced the principle that justice must also account for the plight of complainants who wait years for relief.
The matter has now been listed for compliance on February 7, with the court making it clear that further indulgence would not be justified.
