Jaya Roy, J.- This revision application was heard for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. The petitioners have filed the instant revision application for quashing the order dated 17.12.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. C-599 of 2000 by Shri Prabhakar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby he has disallowed the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for discharging them and dropping the proceeding pending against them.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the opposite party no. 2 who is the wife of Major Anant Kumar, had filed a complaint petition (Complaint Petition No. C-599 of 2000) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 342, 352, 504, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 9.10.2002 and also issued bailable warrant of arrest by his order dated 27.2.2003 and against the said orders the petitioners filed a quashing application for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 9.10.2002 and also for quashing the entire proceeding of the criminal complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The said quashing application was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr. M.P. No. 578 of 2003) before this Court. But ultimately the said quashing application was withdrawn vide order dated 10.7.2003 with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points in the court below at the time of framing of charge or during the course of trial. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed a petition dated 26.7.2008 before the learned Magistrate for dropping the proceeding and discharging them. In the said petition it was categorically stated that since all the accused persons are employees of the Central Government in connection with the affairs of the Union of India in Army, sanction is required in this case for their prosecution as stated in Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C. which provides that:-

"No court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of Armed Force of the Union while acting or purporting to act, in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Govt."

3. It is further submitted that cognizance has been taken by the court without taking sanction from the Central Govt. Accused persons being senior officers of Army were acting in the discharge of their official duty and they had not done anything beyond their jurisdiction. The sanction has not been obtained in this case hence, the case should be dismissed. It is also stated that the husband of the complainant was an officer in Army and during the court martial he was found guilty for that reason the complainant has filed this fabricated and concocted complaint petition only to harass, the senior officers.

4. The present opposite party no. 2 has also filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid petition dated 26.7.2008 filed by the petitioners. After considering the case of both the parties and perusing the records of the case and also hearing the parties at length, the trial court dismissed the aforesaid petition and directed the accused persons to appear physically in the court and fixed the case for accusation by its order dated 17.12.08.

5. The learned counsel of the petitioners Mr. Khan submits that in Cr. M.P. No. 578 of 2003 the High Court, by its order dated 10.7.2003, has given liberty to the petitioners to raise these points in the court below itself at the time of framing of charge or during the course of trial. From the record it transpires that after enquiry, the trial court has found prima facie case against the petitioners (accused persons) under Sections 323, 342 and 352 I.P.C and took cognizance of the case by its order dated 9.10.2002. The petitioners have moved before the High Court challenging the said order. After hearing the parties, the High Court disposed of the sa