JUDGMENT : PURNENDU SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner has preferred application under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Railway Court, Khagaria in R.P.F. Khagaria Case No. RPF(MNE) 132 of 2024, by which, learned Railway Magistrate, Railway Court, Khagaria has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Sections 151 , 153, 174(c) and 175 of the Railway Act, 1989 . 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.01.2024 at about 16:45 hrs, there was a failure of down gate distant signal situated between Maheshkhunt and Chaudhavanni. On investigation of the failure, it was found that at Km 106/08- 10, under the direction of Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Khagaria, while doing 33 KVA electric cable rail track coding by HDD machine, the digitizing cable 2x12c, 2KM got damaged. During joint inspection, it was found that Pankaj Kumar and Ajit Kumar were getting the work done. Despite getting permission for track crossing work from Divisional Railway Manager (Electrical), the work was done without informing the signal department, whereas it was mandatory to inform all the departments that the track crossing work was to be done by HDD machine only in the presence of supervisor. During the above work, the signalling cable got damaged due to the absence of the Electrical Executive Engineer's representative and informant. During the failure, down trains and up trains stopped at distant signals and departed. The estimated cost of the damaged cable is Rs. 3,60,000/-. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), East Central Railway, Danapur when the FIR being R.P.F. Khagaria Case No. RPF(MNE) 132 of 2024 was lodged on 31.01.2024.5. Based on the allegation made in the FIR, Babli Kumari, Sub Inspector, RPF Post Mansi, was directed to conduct enquiry. Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), East Central Railway, Danapur when the FIR being R.P.F. Khagaria Case No. RPF(MNE) 132 of 2024 was lodged on 31.01.2024.5. Based on the allegation made in the FIR, Babli Kumari, Sub Inspector, RPF Post Mansi, was directed to conduct enquiry. In course of the said enquiry, the employee of the contractor namely, Ashok Kumar admitted that while he was executing the work as per the written work order issued in favour of the contractor-Ashok Kumar, damaged the cable 2x12c for about 2 kilometers due to which the signal failed to work and he admitted that in absence of supervisor of the Railway, he started with execution of work which was reported on 31.01.2024. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner who is presently posted as Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), East Central Railway, Danapur and while he was posted at Sonepur, is not named in the FIR, nor he is the one who has issued the work order to the Contractor. Learned counsel further submitted, admitting that signal has been damaged and the offences as alleged in the FIR, the punishment is for less than seven years, subject to payment of fine. The petitioner had not even authorized payment of fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. Learned counsel submitted that the fine/penalty in connection with cable cut was accepted which was deposited by D.D. No. 269013 dated 22.04.2024 as per the sanction order of the Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), East Central Railway, Sonepur. In spite of no material having been collected against the petitioner and specific admission of the co-accused Pankaj Kumar having owned the liability in course of execution of work, the cable was damaged causing failure of signal, proceeding with the prosecution against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of court. Learned counsel in these backgrounds submitted that the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is certainly without application of mind and no material was produced before him to take cognizance against the petitioner. The petitioner, who had directed the co-accused Ramanuj, who was then posted as Electrical Engineer, Railway Khagaria to supervise the work, cognizance was also taken against him. 6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed, however, he informed that Indian Railway has not been made party. The petitioner, who had directed the co-accused Ramanuj, who was then posted as Electrical Engineer, Railway Khagaria to supervise the work, cognizance was also taken against him. 6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed, however, he informed that Indian Railway has not been made party. He has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and it is admitted that already penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh has been accepted by the Railways. In such circumstances and in the interest of justice, an opportunity is required to be given to the Railway to defend their case. 7. Sections 151 , 153, 174(c), and 175 of the Railways Act, 1989, are reproduced hereunder: 151. Damage to or destruction of certain railway properties.—(1) If any person, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause damage or destruction to any property of a railway referred to in sub-section (2), causes by fire, explosive substance or otherwise, damage to such property or destruction of such property, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. (2) The properties of a railway referred to in sub-section (1) are railway track, bridges, station buildings and installations, carriages or wagons, locomotives, signalling, telecommunications, electric traction and block equipments and such other properties as the Central Government being of the opinion that damage thereto or destruction thereof is likely to endanger the operation of a railway, may, by notification, specify. 153. Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by wilful act or omission.— If any person by any unlawful act or by any wilful omission or neglect, endangers or causes to be endangered the safety of any person travelling on or being upon any railway, or obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any rolling stock upon any railway, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years. 174. 174. Obstructing running of train, etc.—If any railway servant (whether on duty or otherwise) or any other person obstructs or causes to be obstructed or attempts to obstruct any train or other rolling stock upon a railway,— (a) by squatting or picketing or during any rail roko agitation or bandh; or (b) by keeping without authority any rolling stock on the railway; or (c) by tampering with, disconnecting or interfering in any other manner with its hose pipe or tampering with signal gear or otherwise, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. 175. Endangering the safety of persons.— If any railway servant, when on duty, endangers the safety of any person— (a) by disobeying any rule made under this Act; or (b) by disobeying any instruction, direction or order under this Act or the rules made thereunder;or (c) by any rash or negligent act or omission, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 8. The Sections 151 , 153, 174(c), and 175 of the Railways Act, 1989 address various serious offenses, including property damage, endangering public safety, and obstructing train operations. The provisions aim to ensure the safety and security of railway property and the traveling public. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, order taking cognizance and at the same time, from the enquiry held in connection with the FIR, I find that the Railway has accepted penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh and the record reveals that petitioner is nowhere connected with the alleged offence. In spite of the same without being any material against the petitioner, cognizance has been taken against him. In this regard, I find it apt to reproduce the observation made by the learned Magistrate, which is as under:- “Perused the case record. From sincere perusal of the case record, it transpires that this case has been registered by the RPF Post Mansi on the written complaint of Raj Kishor Nagar, CSE, Signal, Mansi. In this regard, I find it apt to reproduce the observation made by the learned Magistrate, which is as under:- “Perused the case record. From sincere perusal of the case record, it transpires that this case has been registered by the RPF Post Mansi on the written complaint of Raj Kishor Nagar, CSE, Signal, Mansi. Brief fact of the case is that on 30/01/2024, a work to replace 33 KVA underground electric cable at KM 106/03-04 and 120/07-08 was carried out with permission of Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer, Sonpur under supervision of Electrical Executive Engineer, Khagaria. And due to negligence, the signal cable of the rail on the place of work was damaged which caused loss of Rs 3,60,000/- to the railway and could have been leads to train accidents and likely to endanger the safety of passenger. From further perusal of the records, it also transpires that the Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer, Sonpur had granted permission to work the Electrical Executive Engineer, Khagaria. After, the Sr.DEE, SEE fail to inform Sefaty Depatment (Rail) and CSE (Telicom)/Barauni regarding work. It also transpires that on the date of incident, the site in- charge Pankaj Kumar in his statement stated that he had informed the railways employee and officer before starting work. In support of his statement, the Pankaj Kumar also submitted a pen-drive containing call-record. Thus, at the time of work neither he employee of Electric Department of Rail nor the employee of electric department of Bihar came for supervision. After perusal of records, this court finds that there has been sufficient material on the record to proceed further in the case u/s- 151/153/174(c) of Railways Act, 1989 against Pankaj Kumar (Site Incharge), Ashok Kumar (Contractor) and Natwar Lal Gupta (EEE, Khagaria) and u/s- 151/153/174(c)/175 of Railways Act, 1989 against the Sanjay Kumar (Sr.DEE, SEE), Shivendra Kumar (Sr.DEE, SEE) and Ramanuj (SE, Electric MNE). On the other hand, the accused Ajit Kumar was working as labor supervisor. There is no sufficient material against him in the case. O/c is directed to issue summons to all accused persons.” 10. The petitioner, who had directed the co-accused Ramanuj, who was then posted as Electrical Engineer, Railway Khagaria to supervise the work, cognizance has been taken against him. The petitioner has simply discharged his official duty and in absence of any element of criminality, prosecution against him can only be held to be unwarranted. The petitioner, who had directed the co-accused Ramanuj, who was then posted as Electrical Engineer, Railway Khagaria to supervise the work, cognizance has been taken against him. The petitioner has simply discharged his official duty and in absence of any element of criminality, prosecution against him can only be held to be unwarranted. 11. Accordingly, the entire proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Railway Magistrate, Railway Court, Khagaria in R.P.F. Khagaria Case No. RPF(MNE) 132 of 2024 so far as petitioner is concerned is set aside and quashed. 12. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of.