ChequeBounce – Delhi High Court Declines Relief to Rajpal Yadav in Cheque Cases

ChequeBounce – The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to withdraw its earlier directive requiring actor Rajpal Yadav to surrender before prison authorities in connection with multiple cheque bounce cases, stating that repeated non-compliance with court orders cannot be excused. Soon after the ruling, Yadav presented himself before officials at Tihar Jail, in line with the court’s instructions.

Court Stresses Compliance Over Concessions

The order was passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who dismissed the application filed on behalf of the actor seeking a recall of the surrender directive. The court made it clear that relief cannot be granted to individuals who repeatedly disregard legal obligations, emphasising that the justice system functions on adherence to law rather than defiance of it.

Yadav was present in court during the hearing. His counsel informed the bench that the actor was prepared to deposit ₹25 lakh immediately and that discussions had taken place regarding a tentative schedule to clear the remaining dues. However, the court found these submissions insufficient to justify any relaxation of its earlier order.

Surrender Required Before Any Further Hearing

Justice Sharma noted that the actor had already been directed to surrender a day earlier and had failed to do so within the stipulated timeframe. As a result, the court held that no further arguments on his behalf could be entertained until he complied with the surrender order.

The judge clarified that once Yadav formally surrendered, he would be free to approach the court with an appropriate application seeking relief, which would then be considered on its own merits. Until that point, the court was not inclined to intervene.

Equality Before Law Reiterated

In her observations, Justice Sharma underlined that the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions based on profession, public standing, or social background. The court reiterated that all individuals stand on equal footing before the law and that special treatment cannot be extended simply because someone belongs to the entertainment industry or holds public recognition.

The bench observed that granting repeated leniency to someone who has consistently ignored legal directions would undermine the authority of the courts. Such an approach, the judge noted, could send a damaging signal that judicial orders can be violated without facing consequences.

Previous Orders and Financial Obligations

Earlier this week, the High Court had directed Yadav to surrender by February 4, a deadline he did not meet. A subsequent request seeking additional time was also rejected. Prior to that, on February 2, the court had taken note of the actor’s history of failing to honour commitments made to repay the complainant, Murali Projects Pvt Ltd., describing his conduct as deserving of criticism.

According to court records, Yadav is liable to pay ₹1.35 crore in each of the seven cheque bounce cases pending against him. The court also ordered that the amount already deposited with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court be released to the complainant as part of the recovery process.

Court’s Message on Judicial Discipline

The ruling reinforced the judiciary’s position that compliance with court orders is non-negotiable. The bench stressed that recalling its own directive in the present circumstances would dilute the seriousness of judicial instructions and erode public confidence in the legal system.

By directing the actor to surrender and declining immediate relief, the court sought to underline that accountability applies uniformly, regardless of an individual’s status or profession.

Separate Matter on Environmental Violations

In an unrelated case heard the same day, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of water pollution caused by small eateries and restaurants. Justice Sharma upheld the conviction of a Chandni Chowk sweet shop owner for discharging untreated waste into water bodies, observing that environmental damage has lasting consequences and cannot be justified by the scale of operations.

The court imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh and directed plantation measures, reiterating that environmental responsibility applies to businesses of all sizes.