Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order the dated 16.3.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Complaint Case No.106 of 2007 whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 3. From the complaint petition, which has been brought on record as Annexure–1, it appears that there is allegation in the complaint petition that upon instigation of OP No.3, Gobind Uraon @ Goinda,, O.P. No.2, who is a police officer being S.I. of police, had committed the murder of the husband of the complainant by his revolver. It also appears that the complainant whose statement was recorded on S.A., has supported her case and she has stated that the S.I. of police had fired revolver on the chest of the husband of the complainant causing his death. It also appears that the witnesses were also examined by the complainant, who have also supported the case in the enquiry stage. It further appears that during enquiry, the court below had called a report from the S.P., Lohardaga and from the report of S.P. Lohardaga, it transpired that there was land dispute in the village between the accused Gobind Oraon and the deceased Jitram Oraon and the majority of the villagers were against Gobind Oraon. On a telephone call of the accused Gobind, that the villagers had cordoned his house and they would kill him, the police party visited the village and found that the house of one supporter of the Gobinda Oraon had been ablazed and the mob also cordoned the police party and damaged the police jeep. The members of the mob were armed with lethal weapon like Kulhari, Baluwa etc. The mob also assaulted the police Havildar Ganesh Ram and other police officials, who received severe injuries. Havildar Ganesh Ram succumbed to his injury at the spot. Firing was also made by the police, in course of which the husband of the complainant had died. The Court below has also taken into consideration the material available in the case diary and had found that the mob had gone out of control and they had killed one Havildar and the other police officer also received severe injuries and in firing made by S.I. Harish Pathak, who is O.P. No.2 in this case, the husband of the complainant died. Taking into consideration the materials on record, the Court below rejected the complaint petition filed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law in as much as, the Court below was required to take into consideration only the allegation made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the evidence adduced by the complainant in the enquiry stage, which clearly made out the offence against the O.Ps. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and fit to be set aside. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has taken into consideration the material collected in the enquiry stage and had come to the conclusion, in circumstances as detailed above, in which it was found that the mob was out of control and the mob had also killed a police officer and the other police officer had also received severe injuries, in which firing was made by the police party, and the husband of the petitioner was killed. The Court below accordingly, taking into consideration the materials on record, dismissed the complaint under Section 302 Cr.P.C. 6. I also find from the material collected during the enquiry as detailed above, that the police party was acting in discharge of their official duty, and accordingly, the cognizance was barred under Section 197(2) and (3) of the Cr.P.C., except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. It is apparent that the statutory sanction for taking cognizance required in the case was not there. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is hereby dismissed.