Rajasthan High Court Quashes Two FIRs Against Hanumangarh MLA Ganesh Raj Bansal in 23-Year-Old Case
Jodhpur: Rajasthan HC granted relief to Hanumangarh MLA Ganesh Raj Bansal, the Court has quashed two FIRs registered against him in connection with alleged irregularities dating back to 2003, observing that the belated criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The detailed order was pronounced by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain and was released late Tuesday night
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain quashed both the FIR and made strong observations regarding the manner in which the police and CID (CB) are expected to discharge their duties, emphasizing that investigating agencies must act strictly in accordance with law and cannot function at the command of any individual.
The Court quashed FIR registered against the MLA and his family members and also set aside all consequential proceedings arising from them.
The Court concluded that the registration of both FIRs after nearly 23 years amounted to an abuse of the process of law and found the circumstances indicative of retaliation and harassment against the petitioners.
23-Year Delay in Registration of FIRs Questioned
The Court noted that the alleged incident dated back to 2003, whereas both FIRs were registered in September 2026.
The alleged incidents related to irregularities concerning the Hanumangarh Municipal Council and certain land/lease matters in 2003. However, the two FIRs were registered only on September 17 and 18, 2026, nearly 23 years later.
Immediate order to release
The Rajasthan High Court, while allowing both petitions filed by Bansal, quashed the two FIRs and specifically directed that if Ganesh Raj Bansal was in custody in connection with FIR No. 624/2026, he be released forthwith.
Justice Jain, while recognizing the legal principle that police have the power to register and investigate an FIR upon receiving information regarding a cognizable offence, also made it clear that police action must remain within the framework of law.
The Court noted that the facts forming the basis of the complaint were not newly discovered in September 2026. Material on record showed that the relevant issues were already within the knowledge of the administration in 2003.
Bansal Was Not Holding Any Municipal Office in 2003
The Court also took note of the fact that Ganesh Raj Bansal was neither a member nor office-bearer of the Municipal Council in 2003.
At the relevant time, his wife Santosh Bansal was the Chairperson of the Municipal Council.
The Court further observed that the FIR did not contain any specific allegation showing misuse of an official position by Ganesh Raj Bansal in relation to the alleged transactions.
Petitioners Alleged Political Vendetta
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Kunal Upadhyay argued that the FIRs were the result of political pressure, retaliation and misuse of the criminal process.
It was further submitted that Bansal was politically active and was presently serving as an MLA, and that the criminal proceedings had been initiated after recent municipal elections in which several of his supporters were elected.
The petitioners also relied upon previous litigation concerning the same land dispute and submitted that earlier attempts to seek registration of an FIR had not resulted in such proceedings.
State Denies Allegations of Political Vendetta
The Additional Advocate General submitted that a complaint alleging cognizable offences had been made before the SHO and that registration of an FIR was a statutory obligation.
The State argued that the mere fact that the alleged incidents were from 2003 did not, by itself, render the FIRs illegal.
The State opposed the petitions and denied allegations of political vendetta or mala fides.
It was further submitted that the investigation was transferred to CID (CB) considering Bansal’s position as an MLA. The agency recorded witness statements and collected documentary material.
The State also placed before the Court details of 49 criminal cases allegedly registered against Bansal.
The Court, however, noted that most of these cases had either been closed or resulted in final reports, while charge-sheets had been filed in only some matters.
The Court observed that the relevant facts were already known to the administration in 2003 and that reports of the then authorities and directions of the District Collector were available on record and the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIRs could not be viewed in isolation.
The Court also found that there had been no corresponding criminal action for nearly 23 years, despite the authorities being aware of the underlying dispute.
“No One Is Above the Law”
Court made strong observations concerning the functioning of the police and CID (CB), the Court emphasized that investigating agencies are required to act independently and in accordance with the law.
The Court observed that the police and CID (CB) cannot become “puppets” acting on the command of any individual, and that no person is above the law.
Court quashed both the FIRs and ordered to release immediately.