Where a trial is delayed due to the untraceability and non-appearance of the first informant despite repeated efforts, the court may permit the accused to move an application for discharge or acquittal to be decided expeditiously.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the following prayers;

"It is therefore, Most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 14.12.2007, charge sheet No. 479/07, Whereby the learned chief judicial Magistrate taken cognizance in case No. 2864/08 summon to applicants 16.4.2008 offence under section 498A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act police station Indrapuram District Ghaziabad arising out of case crime No. 776/2007, pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad ( State Versus Anoop Singh & others).
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire further proceeding of the case No. 2864/08 summon to applicants 16.4.2008 offence under section 498A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act police station Indrapuram District Ghaziabad arising out of case crime No. 776/2007, pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Ghaziabad (State Versus Anoop Singh & others)
And /or pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2, vide order dated 05.01.2024. Office through its report dated 06.05.2024 has placed on record, the report of service received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, which is shown as flag 'A'. This Court has perused the report dated 17.02.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad which states that a report of police station Khoda, District Ghaziabad has been received stating therein that notice could not be served on opposite party no. 2, as she is not residing at the address mentioned therein. A report of the house owner submitted by the police along with the said report of police station Khoda, District Ghaziabad dated 17.02.2024 is enclosed, which has also been perused.

5. Subsequently, vide office report dated 07.05.2024, the office has again placed on record a report received from Ghaizabad, this Court has also perused the same. The said report dated 07.05.2024 again states that the report of police station Khoda, District Ghaziabad has been received stating that notice could not be served on opposite party no. 2, as she is reported to have left the address mentioned therein after selling the said house. A report of Rajendra Singh is also annexed. Perused the said report and also the report dated 06.05.2024 of the police station concerned. Further an affidavit of compliance dated 28.5.2024 has been filed by the State which is on record. A perusal of the same goes to show that in paragraph no. 3, it has been mentioned that opposite party no. 2 could not be found out at the said address and it was found that her father has sold the aforesaid house to one Rajendra Singh, in the year 2007. In paragraph no. 4, further it is stated that opposite party no. 2 was further approached for service of notice, where at the said address, she was not found. Subsequent, in paragraph no. 5, it is averred that despite several efforts, the opposite party no. 2 could not be traced out as such she could not be served with the notice of the above case. The fact thus which comes out is that the opposite party no. 2 was not traced out and as such on repeated efforts, notice could not be served on her.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial in the present matter is lingering on due to non appearance of the oppos