The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has officially quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against the sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Hanumangarh, Ganesh Raj Bansal, along with his wife Santosh Bansal and daughter Vandana Jain. In a decisive ruling delivered by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, the Court identified the legal proceedings as a clear case of political vendetta, noting that the registration of these FIRs, filed twenty-three years after the alleged events occurred, constituted a significant abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of Ganesh Raj Bansal, who had been held in custody in connection with one of the FIRs.

The criminal proceedings in question, FIR Nos. 624/2026 and 625/2026, were registered in September 2026 at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for alleged offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These charges pertained to land transactions involving the Nagar Parishad (Municipal Council) of Hanumangarh that purportedly took place between August and October 2003. According to the petitioners, the timing of these filings—more than two decades after the purported cause of action—was intentionally orchestrated to undermine the political standing of Ganesh Raj Bansal, a sitting MLA and a prominent local representative.

During the hearings, the petitioners argued that the litigation was initiated by a habitual litigant with a history of filing vexatious and repetitive complaints. The Court extensively examined the record of the complainant, Sandeep Soni, noting that he had previously filed numerous petitions that were either dismissed or failed to yield any credible evidence of wrongdoing by the petitioners. The judiciary highlighted that while the police possess a statutory mandate to investigate cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), this power does not grant them the liberty to facilitate harassment or act as instruments of political rivalry.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain emphasized the necessity of balancing the police's investigative duties with the protection of fundamental rights, particularly where the evidence suggests a malicious intent. Reflecting on the timing and nature of the accusations, the Court observed, "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 judgment clarified that facts concerning the land disputes were already within the knowledge of the district administration in 2003, yet no official action was deemed necessary at that time, suggesting that the recent legal maneuvering was not based on new, genuine revelations.

The Court’s analysis underscored that Ganesh Raj Bansal held no official capacity or authority within the Nagar Parishad during the relevant period in 2003. Furthermore, the FIRs lacked specific allegations regarding the misuse of any official position by the MLA. Regarding the accusations against his wife and daughter, the Court noted their lack of criminal antecedents, reinforcing the conclusion that the litigation was aimed at personal and political intimidation rather than the pursuit of justice.

Drawing on established legal precedents, the High Court relied upon the landmark decision in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal , which provides an illustrative framework for the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court reiterated that while it is generally reluctant to interfere with an ongoing investigation, it must act to prevent the " abuse of the process of law " when proceedings are "manifestly attended with mala fide " or instituted with " ulterior motives ." By citing the criteria laid out in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited versus State of Maharashtra , the Court balanced the need for robust police investigation with the court's responsibility to shield citizens from groundless criminal prosecution.

The judicial intervention also touched upon the necessity of transparency in the filing of Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Referring to previous observations by a Division Bench of the same Court, Justice Jain noted that the complainant had repeatedly failed to disclose prior litigation history, criminal antecedents , and personal interests in similar matters. This lack of candor served as further evidence that the current FIRs were part of a larger pattern of misconduct. The Court remarked, "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 judgment serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies regarding the constitutional requirements for arrest and investigation. The Court highlighted that the liberty of an individual should not be restricted without proper justification, noting that police authorities must remain objective and avoid being influenced by private interests or external political pressures. The Court clarified that while the police have the right to investigate, they are bound to observe the law strictly and must not function as "puppets of any individual."

As a final consequence of the ruling, both FIRs and all subsequent investigative actions linked to them have been quashed and set aside. The order for the immediate release of Ganesh Raj Bansal marks the end of the recent custodial dispute, confirming that the judicial system will not allow itself to be manipulated for the sake of political or personal vendettas. All pending miscellaneous applications related to the matter were also disposed of by the Court, effectively closing the chapter on these 23-year-old allegations.