ORDER : The petitioner is wife of the 3rd respondent. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 are the relatives of accused No.4. Respondent No.7 at the relevant time was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Nayakanhatti Police Station of Davangere Town. 2. The petitioner filed complaint against accused Nos.1 to 6 before the 7th respondent alleging that the 3rd respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and during subsistence of their marriage, he contracted second marriage with the 4th respondent. She further alleged that respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 to 6 abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 to enter with bigamous marriage. Therefore she sought to prosecute them for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 498A, 506 of IPC. 3. On receiving the complaint the 7th respondent registered the same in Cr.No.107/2010 against respondent Nos.1 to 6. 7th respondent after investigation filed charge sheet dropping respondent Nos.1 & 2. On such charge sheet, JMFC Challakere, took cognizance of offences against respondent Nos.3 to 6 and registered CC.No.232/2011. 4. The petitioner filed another complaint before the respondent No.7 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The said complaint was registered in Cr.No.116/2010 and on investigation charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court took cognizance of the said case and registered the same in CC No.1057/2010. 5. Pending those proceedings, the petitioner filed another complaint before the JMFC Challakere against the respondents seeking their prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 363, 365, 366, 465, 466, 494, 498(A), 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. So far as respondent Nos.1 to 6 the same allegations of cruelty and bigamy etc., were made. So far as 7th respondent it was alleged that in collusion with the other respondents, with the malafide intention he dropped respondent Nos.1 & 2 while filing the charge sheet, thereby he committed professional misconduct. 6. The Trial Court by order dated 08.01.2014 dismissed the said complaint on the ground that respondent No.7 is a retired Government servant/Police Officer and no sanction was taken to prosecute him. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Spl.Judge and 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Cr.R.P.No.11/2014. 7. 6. The Trial Court by order dated 08.01.2014 dismissed the said complaint on the ground that respondent No.7 is a retired Government servant/Police Officer and no sanction was taken to prosecute him. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Spl.Judge and 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Cr.R.P.No.11/2014. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 dismissed Crl.R.P.No.11/2014 on the ground that on the same allegations respondent Nos.1 to 6 were being prosecuted in CC Nos.232/2011 and 1057/2010. Therefore third complaint on the same set of facts was not maintainable. 8. The Sessions Court further held that if at all there was any material against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 who were dropped by 7th respondent, the remedy of the petitioner was to adduce evidence and file application to summon them invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. So far as 7th respondent the Sessions Court held that since he is a retired Government Servant, the sanction was not required. However, having regard to Section 319 of Cr.P.C. the complaint against him was also not maintainable. 9. The petitioner challenges the said order in this petition on the ground that the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the complaint as sanction to prosecute 7th respondent was not required. 10. The petitioner does not dispute that on the same set of facts she had already filed two complaints and respondent Nos.1 to 6 were being prosecuted in CC Nos.232/2011 and 1057/2010. Under the circumstances the Trial court was fully justified in dismissing the third complaint on the ground of double jeopardy. 11. So far as 7th respondent, admittedly he belongs to Karnataka Police Service. Therefore, he was governed by the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Apart from Section 197 of Cr.P.C., Section 170(1) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 bars prosecution of a police officer on the allegation of an act done in the colour of his duty or in excess of duty except with previous sanction of the Government. 12. Further the acts imputed to 7th respondent do not constitute any of the offences alleged in the complaint under Indian Penal Code. 12. Further the acts imputed to 7th respondent do not constitute any of the offences alleged in the complaint under Indian Penal Code. The Revisional Court justifiably said that if some accused were dropped in the charge sheet, the remedy of the petitioner was to seek invocation of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Under such facts and circumstances this court does not find abuse of process of the court in trial Court rejecting the complaint and confirmation of the same by the Sessions Court. There are no grounds to admit the petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.