Rajasthan High Court quashes FIRs on 2003 municipal leases against sitting MLA and others as abuse of process

Rajasthan High Court: While quashing and setting aside 2 FIRs against a sitting MLA, a Single Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., held that the registration of the FIRs in 2026 for alleged irregularities in the issuance of municipal leases in 2003, after an unexplained delay of 23 years, while the same being in knowledge of the District Administration since 2003 and no action had been taken, was an abuse of the process of law and an act of vendetta and harassment. The Court noted that the sitting MLA was arrested within three days of the registration of the FIR but left the legality of the arrest, and compensation for it, to be considered in appropriate proceedings.

The Court further observed that the police are expected to act strictly in accordance with law and cannot arrest a person in violation of any legal provision. Accordingly, it ordered the release of the petitioner, if in custody.

Background

The petitioners have approached the High Court under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking the quashing of FIRs dated 17 September 2026 and 18 September 2026 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIRs arose from complaints submitted by Respondent 2 concerning alleged irregularities in the issuance of municipal leases/pattas in Hanumangarh in 2003.

Petitioner 1 was the Chairperson of the Hanumangarh Municipality in 2003. Petitioner 2, her husband, was a sitting MLA of Rajasthan when the petitions were heard. Petitioner 3 is their daughter. Pursuant to the FIRs, Petitioner 2 was arrested on 20 September 2026 and was currently on remand.

Respondent 2, as per his complaint, is a RTI activist continuously fighting against the corruption prevalent in Nagar Parishad (Municipal Council), Hanumangarh.

Also Read: S. 482 CrPC: SC’s 4 step process to check veracity of quashment prayer by accused | SCC Times

Contentions

1. Petitioners’ Contentions

   1. Political vendetta and harassment

      The petitioners alleged that they were politically active and these FIRs were registered to pressurise Petitioner 2. To substantiate the same, he referred to the recent municipality elections wherein 35 candidates supporting Petitioner 2 have won as corporators, out of total strength of 60 in Hanumangarh Town. Moreover, individuals who were pressurised by the police during the period had filed writ petitions wherein the coordinate Bench granted interim protection which was sufficient to show that the petitioners were implicated due to political vendetta and harassment.

   2. Unexplained delay of 23 years

      As per the FIRs, the alleged acts dated to 2003, whereas the FIRs were registered in September 2026. The petitioners argued that the delay was unexplained and that the cases were registered hurriedly to implicate them falsely. They also questioned the registration without a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC.

   3. Absence of prima facie offence

      Petitioner 2 contended that he held no municipal office in 2003 and, had no connection with Petitioner 1’s official functions. Petitioner 3 lived in another State after her marriage. Petitioners maintained that no material showed that Petitioner 1 acted unlawfully in issuing pattas, Petitioner 2 had no role in the lease deeds, and that the deeds had not been challenged before a competent court. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, they submitted that the FIR allegations did not establish a prima facie case.

   4. Criminal antecedents and prior litigation conduct

      The petitioners relied upon criminal record filed by the government counsel to show that 5 criminal cases were registered against Respondent 2. Moreover, they also relied on an order dated 13 April 2026 passed in a writ petition by the Division Bench of this Court wherein it noted that 9 writ petitions were filed by Respondent 2. It dismissed 6 including the one being heard, on the grounds that Respondent 2 had consistently suppressed prior litigation details, failed to disclose material facts, made false statements on oath, concealed personal interest, and misrepresented private disputes as public interest matters. The Court further held that Respondent 2 with his misconduct and abuse of process of law was not entitled to continue such litigation and imposed cost of ₹5000 for each litigation.

   5. Unnecessary and illegal arrest

      Petitioner 2 relied upon Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2026) 7 SCC 311, Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939, to contend that there was no need and necessity to arrest Petitioner 2, but he was arrested in violation of legal provisions. While relying on Ravi Meena v. Pushpendra Singh Rathod¹, Petitioner 2 submitted that arrest in relation to Section 41-A CrPC is a clear case of contempt of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. He further submitted that when the FIR is politically motivated and registered with mala fide reasons, the same is liable to be quashed to protect fundamental rights of petitioner as the entire process would be an abuse of process of law.

2. Respondents’ Contentions

   1. Police authority and obligation to act

      The Additional Advocate General (AAG) denied that there were any political vendetta or any malicious attempts by State or police in registration of FIRs. He submitted that Respondent 2 had filed a criminal complaint before the SHO, therefore, the police were under an obligation to register an FIR, pursuance of the mandate under Section 175 BNSS. There is no discretion with the police to refuse the registration of FIR, considering an allegation about commission of a cognizable offence and the complainant himself has filed a written report at the police station.

   2. Investigations and custodial interrogation

      AAG submitted that since Petitioner 2 was an MLA, the case was transferred to Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department (CB CID) for further investigation. He further submitted that statements and documents had been collected, a prima facie case had emerged against him, and his arrest was necessary for custodial interrogation, disclosure, recovery and further collection of evidence. Since no evidence was found against Petitioner 3, the police were not taking, and would not take, action against her.

      Respondent 2 relied upon Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, to submit that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and the courts should not thwart such investigation.

   3. Inherent jurisdiction of High Court

      While relying on State v. M. Maridoss, (2023) 4 SCC 338, Respondent 2 submitted that, while considering the power under Section 528 BNSS, the Court should not conduct a mini trial as the same is contrary to the provisions laid down in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure. He supported the State’s opposition and submitted that inherent jurisdiction must depend on the facts of the case; every police action could not be presumed to constitute abuse of process. He maintained that he complained after learning of the alleged crime. He further submitted that a person need not be the direct victim to report a cognizable offence.

   4. Legality of arrest

      Respondent 2 submitted that early arrest was not necessarily illegal and alleged that Petitioner 2 had influenced evidence, intimidated witnesses and interfered with the criminal justice process. He placed reliance on Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure, along with Krishnakant v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1664 to support his argument. He further contradicted the argument advanced by the petitioners and submitted that no case is made out for interference by this Court for quashing FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

   5. Criminal antecedents

      AAG had initially stated that 82 criminal cases had been registered against Petitioner 2 and later filed details of 49 cases. The Court noted that, except for four items, the cases were closed or ended in final reports, and that charge-sheets had been filed in five items, of which one was disposed of by compromise and one withdrawn. No criminal antecedent had been found against Petitioners 1 and 3. Respondent 2 pointed out the 3 pending proceedings disclosed in Petitioner 2’s election affidavit.

Also Read: SC quashes FIR against GPA holder in civil land dispute | SCC Times

Analysis

1. Legal Position for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/ 528 BNSS

The Court had relied on illustrative categories laid down for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in Bhajan Lal which were considered in Anukul Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, wherein it was held that these categories are illustrative and not exhaustive but provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations: preventing abuse of the process of law, and ensuring that proceedings are not stifled at the threshold where disputed questions of fact are involved.

The Court placed reliance on Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454, wherein the Supreme Court while considering the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution observed that a Court need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

It also placed reliance on Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, wherein it was held that the Court has to consider credibility of allegations made and whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process.

2. Prior knowledge of case and registration of FIR

The Court noted that Respondent 2 had no personal interest in the land in question, except that he is a private individual and claimed to be an RTI activist, and he has been fighting for a long time against Petitioners 1 and 2. The same is evident from the order dated 24 February 2022 wherein the coordinate Bench dismissed multiple miscellaneous petitions filed by Respondent 2.

The Court expressed skepticism regarding the significant delay of 23 years on part of Respondent 2 in filing the FIR and held it to be an abuse of the process of law and an act of vendetta and harassment. It also raised doubts regarding the prompt police action in registering FIR immediately and arresting Petitioner 2, a sitting MLA, within 3 days of registration of FIR. The material on record clearly indicates that the facts revealed by Respondent 2 are not new facts which have suddenly come to light. All these facts were within the notice of the District Administration since 2003, but no action has been initiated since 2003.The same signifies that neither Chairperson nor the executive officer of the municipality was responsible for any misdeed or wrongdoing while in discharge of official duties.

3. Investigation and Arrest

In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure, it was held that the police have a statutory right under the CrPC to investigate when a criminal offence of a cognizable nature is alleged. The principle referred hereinabove does not mean that the police can investigate any false or manipulated case or that the police are bound to arrest a person in violation of any legal provision.

It reiterated that the police or the CB CID is expected to act strictly in accordance with law, and they are not puppets of any individual, giving command against the law. Everyone is duty bound to uphold the constitutional ethics and values.

The Court concluded that in view of categories under Bhajan Lal, the registration of the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings are an abuse of the process of law.

Decision

In view of the above discussions, the Court allowed the miscellaneous petitions, quashed and set aside the FIRs dated 17 September 2026 and 18 September 2026 along with all consequential proceedings arising out of them. Petitioner 2 if in custody, was ordered to be released forthwith.

[Santosh Bansal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9090/2026, decided on 29-9-2026]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners: Kunal Upadhyay, Vinod Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Deepak Choudhary, Additional Advocate General; Narendra Gehlot, Public Prosecutor, Neeraj K. Gurjar, Advocate.