New Delhi [India], April 2 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in the cheque bounce case involving Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, after a final round of settlement efforts failed despite sustained intervention by the Court, with the actor making an emotional appeal during the hearing.
The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who expressed visible dissatisfaction over the shifting stand taken by Yadav regarding repayment of dues.
At one point, the Court remarked, "I am not getting my answers. The undertaking said something else, and now you are saying something else," indicating concern over inconsistency in submissions.
Appearing for the complainant company, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka submitted that Yadav had already accepted his conviction and could not now evade liability. He highlighted that a revision petition filed in 2024 was accompanied by an unexplained delay of 1894 days and lacked sufficient grounds for condonation. He further argued that the completion of the sentence does not absolve the accused of financial obligations.
Sikka also stressed that despite repeated assurances, the dues remained unpaid, leaving the complainant with no option but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During the proceedings, the Court made earnest attempts to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement. On being asked, the complainant agreed to accept a reduced amount of ₹6 crore as a full and final settlement.
However, in a visibly emotional submission, Yadav opposed the proposal, stating that he had already suffered severe financial setbacks. Appearing virtually, he told the Court that he had been compelled to sell five flats and had already paid a substantial amount. In a moment reflecting distress and frustration, he stated, "I am not emotional... send me to jail five more times," underscoring the strain the prolonged litigation had placed on him.
In an effort to break the deadlock, the Court even proposed a structured payment of ₹3 crore within a fixed timeline, clarifying that it was a judicial intervention and not a concluded settlement. Despite this, no consensus could be reached.
The Court also took strong exception to the manner in which the proceedings unfolded, cautioning, "Never think the judge weak if the judge is nice to you," and noting that valuable judicial time was being wasted.
With settlement efforts collapsing and differences remaining unresolved, the Court ultimately reserved its judgment in the matter.
Earlier, the High Court had extended Yadav's interim bail after taking note of partial payments made towards the outstanding dues. The case stems from multiple cheque dishonour complaints in which the actor was convicted by the trial court. While the High Court had previously granted opportunities to facilitate settlement, it had also flagged repeated non-compliance with payment undertakings.