The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 8 September agreed to hear special leave petitions filed by actor and comedian Rajpal Yadav and his wife challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that upheld their conviction in seven cheque dishonour cases, granting them exemption from surrendering subject to a deposit of ₹5 crore with the court's registry by Wednesday. The bench also issued notice returnable on 15 September.

What the Supreme Court Ordered

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana took up the petitions after they were mentioned before the apex court. The bench directed that the petitioners would be exempted from surrendering only upon depositing ₹5 crore with the registry of the top court.

'Subject to deposit of ₹5 crore by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court by tomorrow, they are granted exemption from surrendering,' the Supreme Court ordered. The notice issued in the matter is returnable on 15 September.

Background: The Delhi High Court Judgment

The Delhi High Court had on 10 July upheld Rajpal Yadav's conviction while reducing his sentence from six months to three months' simple imprisonment in each of the seven cases. The fine was also reduced from ₹1.60 crore to ₹1.05 crore in each case, with all substantive sentences directed to run concurrently — bringing the total fine liability to ₹7.35 crore. Of that amount in each case, ₹1,04,75,000 was directed to be paid to complainant M/s Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, while ₹25,000 was to be credited to the State.

The High Court had earlier dismissed revision petitions filed by the actor and his wife, noting a delay of 1,894 days in challenging the conviction and observing that Yadav had failed to honour multiple undertakings given before the court despite repeated opportunities for an amicable settlement.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had remarked pointedly: 'Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor, nor can legal positions be altered with every change of strategy, whosoever the litigant may be. Courts adjudicate on the basis of settled legal principles and the record before them.'

The Petitioners' Key Arguments

The special leave petitions contend that the High Court failed to consider a subsequent consent agreement between the parties, under which the earlier security cheques were allegedly to be returned and fresh cheques were issued. According to the petition, the parties had entered into four agreements in connection with a film being produced by Rajpal Yadav, after earlier agreements could not be fulfilled within stipulated timelines.

Specifically, the petitioners claim that under a fourth agreement — described as a consent agreement dated 21 April 2013 — the eight security cheques issued under the previous agreement were to be returned, and four fresh cheques of ₹10 crore were issued. They allege the respondent did not return the eight security cheques and instead proceeded with prosecution after seven of those cheques were dishonoured.

The petitioners have relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, arguing that the subsequent agreement between the parties ought to have brought an end to the original complaint proceedings and that the cheques in question were no longer legally enforceable.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court will take up the matter on 15 September, by which date the ₹5 crore deposit must have been made for the exemption from surrender to remain in force. The High Court had earlier suspended the modified sentence for two months to allow the petitioners to pursue legal remedies — a window the Supreme Court's intervention now extends. Whether the apex court will ultimately accept the consent-agreement argument and set aside the conviction remains to be seen, with the case raising significant questions about the enforceability of cheques after subsequent agreements between parties.