G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition by the complainant has been preferred against the order dated 11.10.1996 passed be the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, whereby he discharged the respondents No. 2 & 3 on the basis of the judgment of the Common Cause v. Union of India, decided on 1.5.1996.
(2.) Mr. Gehlot contends that the trial Court has erred in discharging the respondents in this case as the delay in disposal of the case was attributable to the respondents themselves. His further contention is that in the subsequent judgment of Common Cause (1996) 6 SCC 775, the Apex Court has clearly directed that the directions contained in Para No. 1 & 2 of the earlier judgment shall not apply to a case under section 304-A of IPC and if the delay is attributable to the accused himself, the trial shall not be closed.
(3.) The case against respondents No. 2 & 3 was under section 304-A IPC. The second judgment in the Common Cause case expressly bars the closure of the case under section 304-A IPC on the basis of the earlier Common Cause case. In the instant case, the pendency of the case, except for the reasons attributable to the accused, was also not for more than two years. In view of the judgment of the second Common Cause case, the impugned order is not sustainable.;