JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 21.5.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 258/2015 titled as State of HP vs. Atma Ram and others, whereby learned Court below has proceeded to issue notice of accusation against the petitioner-accused, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 336 and 304A IPC, present petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of the aforesaid order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case borne out of record are that on 1.7.2015, deceased Vikas Kumar alias Banti, came in contact with 11 KV electricity wires, as a consequence of which, he fell on the ground and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of statement of the complainant, Sudesh Kumar, police registered an FIR. After completion of the investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law. 3. During investigation, police found that co-accused Atma Ram had moved an application to the Electricity Board in the year 2004, praying therein to shift the electricity pole erected near the site, on which he proposed to raise construction. Electricity Board by way of notice dated 18.6.2004, apprised Atma Ram with regard to consequences of raising construction without obtaining permission from the Electricity Board. However, the fact remains that subsequently, Electricity Board shifted the electricity pole to other place through contractor, Punnu Ram. Allegedly, Atma Ram continued construction work and again without intimating Electricity Board extended construction work under the Electricity line, which at one point of time was shifted to another place. Police further found that accused Chokas Ram was posted as a Lineman in the area. Though application for shifting Electricity pole was preferred in the year 2004, but the same was shifted by the Board through Contractor Punnu Ram, in the year 2010, whereafter, coaccused Atma Ram added one another room and latrine underneath the 11 KV lines. Lineman Chokas Ram, who was on duty in the month of October, 2012 and J.E. Ramesh Chand (present petitioner) failed to inform higher authorities in this regard. Lineman Chokas Ram, who was on duty in the month of October, 2012 and J.E. Ramesh Chand (present petitioner) failed to inform higher authorities in this regard. As per investigation, on 19.5.2015 accused Atma Ram again moved an application to shift the 11 KV line, whereupon Assistant Engineer, Mukesh directed Junior Engineer (present petitioner) to inspect the spot and report, but since no notice was issued to Atma Ram, police found present petitioner, Atma Ram and Lineman Chokas Ram to have acted in negligent manner and accordingly, registered case against them. 4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-à-vis impugned order passed by learned Court below, this Court finds that factum with regard to issuance of instructions, if any, by Assistant Engineer Mukesh Kumar directing therein present petitioner, who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time, to issue notice to co-accused Atma Ram, weighed heavily with the learned Court below, while framing notice of accusation against the petitioner, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 336 and 304A IPC, but documents annexed with the Challan having been filed by investigating agency nowhere suggest that instructions, if any, were ever issued by Assistant Engineer Mukesh Kumar to the petitioner that notice be issued to coaccused Atma Ram, rather perusal of application submitted by Atma Ram addressed to Assistant Engineer, HPSEB Division Bharmour (available at page-13 of the Challan) suggests that co-accused Atma Ram had requested for shifting 11 KV line to some other place. Another communication available at page-14 of the Challan, further suggests that co-accused Atma Ram also sent similar communication to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bharmour, District Chamba, who taking note of the seriousness of the matter, requested Assistant Engineer to take appropriate action. Endorsement made upon aforesaid letter suggests that Assistant Engineer, HPSEB directed Junior Engineer (present petitioner) to check and report immediately, who after having inspected the spot, remarked as under: “Few year ago, line was also shifted from the house of applicant and work order was given to the applicant; once again applicant has built house under 11 KV HT Line (extended construction of house) so HPSEBL cannot again and again do such activities. It is further added that disciplinary action shall be initiated against applicant as per rule. Since he extended construction towards line.” 5. It is further added that disciplinary action shall be initiated against applicant as per rule. Since he extended construction towards line.” 5. Perusal of aforesaid remarks made by Junior Engineer Ramesh Chand (petitioner) suggests that some disciplinary action was proposed to be initiated against applicant as per Rules but there is no document, if any, available on record suggestive of the fact that notice, if any pursuant to the aforesaid remarks recorded by Junior Engineer, was ever issued to the co-accused Atma Ram, who allegedly raised construction beneath 11 KV lines, without having obtained necessary permission of the HPSEBL. 6. Learned court below, while framing charge against petitioner has categorically recorded that Junior Engineer Ramesh Chand despite having intimation, failed to issue notice to accused Atma Ram, but learned Court below failed to take note of the fact that notice, if any, in this regard could only be issued by Sub Divisional Officer of the concerned Sub Division. Perusal of annexure P-6, communication dated 4.10.2016, clearly suggests that Sub Divisional Officer concerned was authorized to issue /serve notice to a person constructing house under or near 11 KV HT line as per instructions (IE Rule 79) and Rule 259 (82) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. 7. Having carefully perused the endorsement made by the petitioner on the communication available at pages-12 and 13 annexed with the Challan, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate that the petitioner after having received direction from the Assistant Engineer not only inspected the spot, rather apprised the authorities concerned with regard to previous conduct of co-accused Atma Ram, but notice, if any, could only be issued by Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer and not by Junior Engineer, as such, trial court below wrongly concluded that notice was to be issued by the Junior Engineer (petitioner), while framing notice of accusation against petitioner, for having committed offence punishable under Sections 336 and 304A of IPC. 8. Moreover, this court was unable to lay its hand on document, if any, placed on record by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that Assistant Engineer, after having received aforesaid report from Junior Engineer (petitioner) further issued communication to the Junior Engineer directing him to issue notice to Atma Ram on his behalf. 9. 8. Moreover, this court was unable to lay its hand on document, if any, placed on record by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that Assistant Engineer, after having received aforesaid report from Junior Engineer (petitioner) further issued communication to the Junior Engineer directing him to issue notice to Atma Ram on his behalf. 9. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the communication dated 4.10.2016, annexure P-6 that notice to the person constructing house/building under or near 11 KV HT line, could only be issued by the Sub Divisional Officer of the Sub Division. It is not in dispute that learned Court below has proceeded to frame notice of accusation against the accused solely on the ground that he despite having received instructions from the Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Dharampur, failed to issue notice to the co-accused Atma Ram, who allegedly raised construction beneath 11 KV line, without having obtained necessary permission from the Electricity Board, but, as has been observed herein above, Junior Engineer concerned immediately, after having received instructions, inspected the spot and submitted his report to the Assistant Engineer, whereafter, action, if any, was to be taken by the Assistant Engineer. 10. Though, having taken note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this court would have proceeded to discharge the petitioner but at this stage, deems it fit to remand the case back to the court below with the direction to consider the matter afresh in light of annexure P-6 annexed to the present petition, so that appropriate opportunity is given to all the stake-holders including Assistant Engineer, Mukesh. 11. At this stage, this Court further wishes to observe that this Court, while passing judgment in Varun Bhardwaj V/s State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2017 (HP)707 has held that at initial stage of framing of charge, court is concerned not with the proof but with the strong suspicion, whether accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty, but having taken notice of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in L. Krishna Reddy v. State by Station House Officer and Ors, (2014)14 SCC 401 , this court has categorically held that while framing charge under Section 228 CrPC, court must keep in mind the interests of the person arraigned as an accused who may be put to ordeals of trial on the basis of flippant and vague allegations. This court has further held that once a case is presented to the Court by prosecution, it is bounden duty of the court to sift the material to ascertain whether a prima facie case has been established or not? Needless to say, exercise, if any, carried out by court while ascertaining whether a prima facie case, if any, exists against accused or not, must reflect in the order, whereby charge is proposed to be framed. 12. Though, in the case at hand, court below has taken note of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, but there appears to be no attempt, if any, made by the court below to ascertain at the time of framing of charge, whether prima facie case exists against accused or not and as such, impugned order can not be allowed to sustain. 13. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Order dated 21.5.2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 258/2015 titled as State of HP vs. Atma Ram and others is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the court below to decide the same afresh, in light of the observations made herein above. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause appearance of the accused in person or through their representatives on 10.9.2018, on which date, learned Court below shall proceed to decide the matter afresh. Registry to apprise the learned Court below with regard to passing of the instant judgment. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that findings recorded herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case pending before the learned Court below. Pending appellations, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.