Paran Kumar Phukan, J.

This application u/s 482 of the CrPC has been preferred for quashment of the proceedings of C.R. Case No.1455/2015 and the order dated 06.06.2015, passed by the learned Magistrate, Diphu, Karbi Anglong taking cognizance against the accused petitioners u/s 307/341/323/405/379/294/506 of the IPC and issuing process to them under the said sections.

2. Heard Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. J. Atia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Also heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

3. The respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the court at Diphu on 29.04.2015 alleging therein that he is the husband of Smti. Shibani Kar, the accused No.1 in the complaint petition and their marriage was solemnized on 12.05.2003. As a result of their co-habitation a child was born. From the very beginning acrimony has started in their marital relationship and his wife started torturing him both mentally and physically on various pretexts. On 09.10.2011 at about 9 am the other co accused who are the close relatives of his wife came to his house and took his wife to the parental house and while leaving his house his wife took away some gold ornaments belonging to him. He tried his best to bring her back to his company but failed and they threatened him with his life if he makes any further attempt to bring back his wife to his company. One day when he visited her house he was assaulted and kept under confinement and he was released only after he threatened them with police action.

4. The case came up for trial before the learned Magistrate, Diphu and the learned court after receiving the written complaint proceeded to record statement of the complainant u/s 200 of the CrPC and having found a prima facie case issued process to the accused petitioners.

5. Aggrieved by the order, the accused petitioners have preferred this application u/s 482 CrPC for quahsment of the entire criminal proceedings filed by the respondent No.2 and consequential orders.

6. Mr. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh(D) through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh and Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624 to project that there was enormous delay in lodging the complaint before the court and because of the cases field by the wife against the complainant u/s 498A IPC, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 125 CrPC, claiming maintenance, the complainant of the present case i.e., respondent No.2 has falsely filed the complaint with a view to harass the petitioners with malafide intentions with ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on the petitioners. It is submitted that although the alleged occurrence took place on 09.10.2011, the complaint was filed on 29.04.2015, that too without offering any explanation in the complaint regarding the enormous delay in filing the complaint and nothing has been stated by the complainant in his statement before the Magistrate regarding the delay in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners without applying his judicial mind and without assigning any reason in his order dated 06.06.2015 for taking cognizance after such enormous delay in filing the complaint.

7. Mr. Dev, learned counsel submits that the complaint was filed with the sole intention of harassing the petitioners and enmeshing them in long and arduous criminal proceeding because of the matrimonial discord between the wife and the husband and filing of the cases by the wife against the husband accusing him of torturing her and claiming maintenance from him.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that although the occurrence of theft took place on 09.10.2011 the complainant visited the house of the petitioners several times thereafter to bring back his wife but he was ill treated and assaulted and kept under confinement.

9. The principle of law f