The Rajasthan High Court has quashed two FIRs registered against the sitting Hanumangarh MLA Ganesh Raj Bansal, his wife Santosh Bansal and their daughter in connection with alleged fraudulent transactions involving municipal land dating back to 2003.

Holding that the 'registration of both the FIRs is just an abuse of the process of law', the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed:

"Having considered the entirety and all the facts as narrated in the FIRs, No. 624/2026 and 625/2026, we are of the view that the registration of both the FIR are just an abuse of the process of law, that too after 23 years for the alleged official act of petitioner No. 1 is just an act of vendetta and harassment.
The complainant having personal prejudices and bias to show animosity. Thus, these are illustrative categories as mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), and also in subsequent judgments till date.Therefore, we are not hesitant in arriving at a conclusion that the registration of the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings are sufficient to draw a conclusion that these are abuse of the process of law.

The dispute arose from complaints filed by one Sandeep Soni, an alleged RTI activist. He complained that certain individuals had encroached on the municipal land and subsequently sold it. The complaint also referred to the reports submitted by the then Sub Divisional Officers to the District Collector in September 2003 and directions issued to Municipal Authorities not to issue lease deeds or pattas.

Santosh Bansal was the municipal chairperson at the relevant time. The complaints also named the then Executive Officer of Municipal Council and other individuals allegedly connected with the land transactions.

The petitioner argued that the FIRs have been registered after an unexplained delay of 23 years and were motivated by political vendetta. It was argued that Ganesh Raj Bansal did not hold any position in the municipality in 2003 and that the FIRs did not allege any misuse of official position by him.

It was argued that the land dispute had been the subject of earlier proceedings and that attempts by the complainant to initiate criminal action in relation to the same dispute had previously failed.

Opposing the petitions, the State argued that the investigation had revealed a prima facie case against Ganesh and the other accused. It was submitted that the matter was transferred to CID for investigation and that the arrest of MLA was required for custodial interrogation and recovery of evidence.

The bench noted that the complainant had no personal interest in the land and had been pursuing the dispute for a long period of time. The court took note of the earlier proceedings initiated by the complainant concerning the similar dispute.

The court observed that the allegations were not based on facts that had newly come to light in September 2026; but rather, evidence indicated that the dispute was within the knowledge of the district administrator since 2003. However,r no action was taken by the District Collector or municipal authorities.

The court further noted that Ganesh was neither a member of the municipality or held any position in 2003. It was emphasized that the FIR contained no allegation that he had misused his official position at the relevant time. Regarding the allegations against mother and daughter, the court noted that they had no criminal antecedents.

Thus, the bench held that the registration of the FIR after such a prolonged period constituted an abuse of the process of law. It emphasized;

"The material on record clearly indicate that the facts revealed by the complainant are not the new facts which have suddenly come to light on 17.09.2026 or on 18.09.2026; rather, the complainant was well aware of these facts. Moreover, all these facts were within the notice of the District Administration since 2003, but no action has been initiated since 2003. If any action has not been taken, it signifies that neither the Chairperson of the Nagar Parishad nor the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad was responsible for any misdeed or wrongdoing, wile discharge of official duty by anyone. The offence, if any, and the criticism or allegations are part and parcel of his/her public life. Once an act constitutes an offence punishable under the law, then a person is liable for such criminal act; otherwise, not".

Accordingly, the court quashed the two FIRs and consequential proceedings.