Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in Crime No.195 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2. The petitioners contention in his petition is that the petitioner was closely related to the second respondent herein, who is the defacto complainant and used to frequently visit her house. Even on 212. 2006, the petitioner came to the defacto complainants house with his wife. The petitioner asked the defacto complainant to accompany him for a ride. The petitioner took the defacto complainant to Tirupati and Bangalore. They lived as husband and wife. In the meantime, the defacto complainants father preferred a complaint with the first respondent police. The complaint has also been taken on file by the respondent police, for enquiry in CSR.No.282 of 2006. The petitioner, his wife and the defacto complainant, Vidya Lakshmi are living in the same room. After three months, on 08.03.2007, the petitioners wife preferred a complaint against the petitioner and the defacto complainant under Section 498(A), 494 and 506(ii) of IPC, and the police registered a case, and the two were remanded to custody. Further, the petitioner submitted that the allegations do not constitute any criminal offence, but the complaint was filed with intent to harass the petitioner and his family members. 3. The respondent/police registered a case in Crime No.195 of 2007 dated 26.06.2007. The First Information Report disclosed that, as per order of the Honourable Court, the defacto complainant/ second respondent herein lodged a complaint with the respondent police stating that the petitioner Gopalakrishnan is a close relative. On 212. 2006, he came along with his wife in a Tata Sumo Car. The petitioner then took the defacto complainant to Tirupati and Bangalore in his car. At the time of staying at Bangalore, the petitioner and the defacto complainant lived as husband and wife. The petitioner also promised to marry the defacto complainant. Knowing this fact, the petitioners in-laws advised him to detach himself from the Defacto complainant. Under the circumstances, the defacto complainants father lodged a complaint with the respondent police. The petitioners wife, Mrs. Maheswari also lodged a complaint with the respondent police. On the strength of Maheswaris complaint, the petitioner and the defacto complainant were arrested. This is the case of the prosecution. 4. Under the circumstances, the defacto complainants father lodged a complaint with the respondent police. The petitioners wife, Mrs. Maheswari also lodged a complaint with the respondent police. On the strength of Maheswaris complaint, the petitioner and the defacto complainant were arrested. This is the case of the prosecution. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there was no dispute that the petitioner and the second respondent herein lived in the same roof at Bangalore as husband and wife. Now, the petitioners wife is aggrieved by the act of the petitioner and the second respondent herein. If this Court quashes the First Information Report, the petitioners wife Maheswari will be prejudiced. Further, this occurrence comes under cognizable offences. 5. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere in Crime No.195 2007 dated 26.06.2007 on the file of the respondent police. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed and hence it is dismissed.