ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Crl.M.C. No.4613 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNSS ’ for short], by the 2 nd accused in C.C. No.1 of 2011 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, seeking quashment of the entire proceedings as against the 2 nd accused in C.C. No.1 of 2011. 2. The 4 th accused in the same case has No.5147 of 2025 under Section 528 of the BNSS and the prayer therein is also quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.1 of 2011 as against him. 3. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.640 of 2025 has been filed under Section s 438 and 442 of the BNSS , at the instance of the 5 th accused in C.C. No.1 of 2011, challenging the charge framed in this crime against him. 4. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the relevant records and the charge framed against the 5 th accused. 5. The prosecution case emanated on registration of Crime No.RC10/A/2008 by the CBI ACB, Thiruvananthapuram and the allegations are concerning installation of LED Display Boards at various railway stations under the Thiruvananthapuram Division of the Indian Railways. The 1 st accused was the Senior Divisional Signals and Telecommunications Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Railway Division. The 2 nd accused was the Divisional Signals and Telecommunications Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Railway Division. A tender was floated inviting competitive bids for supply and installation of LED Display Boards at various railway stations. The tender process was completed and the work was executed. Subsequently, on getting information that witness No.1, Sri.R.Radhakrishnan had supplied the LED Display Boards to the contractors, who are accused Nos.3 to 6, at a very low cost, a crime was registered and an investigation was held. The allegations in the final report are that accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused and in furtherance of that conspiracy, the works in question were executed at a very high cost resulting in a loss of Rs.53,00,585/- to the Railways and corresponding pecuniary advantage to accused Nos.3 to 6. The allegations in the final report are that accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused and in furtherance of that conspiracy, the works in question were executed at a very high cost resulting in a loss of Rs.53,00,585/- to the Railways and corresponding pecuniary advantage to accused Nos.3 to 6. On the said premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420 of the IPC and under Section Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short], by the accused. 6. It is pointed out by the respective counsel for the petitioners that, as per Annexure.5 common order in Crl.M.C. No.5555 of 2022 and Crl.Rev.Pet. No.529 of 2022 dated 04.03.2025, this Court addressed the challenge against the Final Report filed in Crime No.RC10/A/2008 at the instance of accused Nos.3 and 6 and finally found in paragraph No.14 that, the materials produced by the prosecution are insufÏcient to establish that there was conspiracy for cheating the Railway or attempt by accused Nos.1 and 2 to obtain pecuniary advantage out of the transaction. On the said basis, this Court quashed the Final Report pertaining to the 3 rd accused and also quashed the charge framed against the 6 th accused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, the status of accused Nos.4 and 5 is as that of accused Nos.3 and 6. Therefore, in view of the finding in Annexure.5 order, the prosecution against them will not stand. It is argued further that, as per Annexure.5 order, this Court found that, accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not obtain any pecuniary advantage out of the transaction and therefore, the entire prosecution, as against the petitioners herein/ accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 also is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBI conceded Annexure.5 order and submitted that whether any challenge raised against the said order is to be ascertained. 9. In paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 14 of Annexure.5 order, this Court observed as under: 10. It is alleged that the estimate amount was escalated with a view to inure undue advantage from the contractors. Needless to say, a successful bidder alone could be the contractor. 9. In paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 14 of Annexure.5 order, this Court observed as under: 10. It is alleged that the estimate amount was escalated with a view to inure undue advantage from the contractors. Needless to say, a successful bidder alone could be the contractor. Conspicuously, the prosecution does not allege that accused Nos.1 and 2 did any manipulation in the tender process. If so, how could they know that accused Nos.3 to 6 would be the lowest tenderers. It is not upto reason or logic that accused Nos.1 and 2 could have had a conspiracy at the stage of preparing the estimate itself with accused Nos.3 to 6. When these contractors boarded through an open tender, attributing such an act of conspiracy is beyond reason. 11. In the above context, the tax invoice issued by accused No.1 in the name of M/s Apt Micro Solutions Ltd. has to be looked into. Only based on the cost of LED display boards, the price difference of the work was calculated in the final report. On that basis, the loss has also been calculated. The cost of the peripherals required to undertake the work of installing LED display boards and the labour charges were not reckoned with in the final report. In the tax invoice itself, labour charges for installation were specifically added. 12. The contractors ought to execute the work to the satisfaction of the employer, making use of the materials purchased for the purpose. Even if the cost of LED display boards was much less than the amount of work quoted by the petitioners, that by itself would not amount to an offence of cheating and the criminal misconduct coming within the purview of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. xxx xxx xxx 14. In this case, the allegations are with respect to civil works executed pursuant to a tender process as per the tender notice dated 20.04.2006. This crime was registered in the year 2008. From the facts mentioned above, it is quite evident that after going through the necessary formalities, the contractors were selected and the work awarded. As is seen from Annexure-3 in Crl.M.C., a technical committee considered the matter before awarding the contract. Of course, the materials produced by the prosecution would probabilise that the contracts were awarded for an inflated amount. The Railways would have sustained a loss on account of that also. As is seen from Annexure-3 in Crl.M.C., a technical committee considered the matter before awarding the contract. Of course, the materials produced by the prosecution would probabilise that the contracts were awarded for an inflated amount. The Railways would have sustained a loss on account of that also. However, the materials produced by the prosecution are insufÏcient to establish that there was conspiracy for cheating the Railway or attempt by accused Nos.1 and 2 to obtain pecuniary advantage out of the transaction. As held by the Apex Court in M/s Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others [ (2012) 8 SCC 216 ] and Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and another v. BVG India Limited and others [ (2018) 5 SCC 462 ], the court should be slow in inferring with the process of civil contract unless public interest is patently affected. Also, it was held that the decision to award a contract should be arbitrary and irrational for the court to interfere with that decision. That is the restraint imposed by the Apex Court even while civil consequences of a contract are under consideration. 10. In view of Annexure.5 order, the petitioners herein, who are the accused in the same case, could not be treated differently than accused Nos.3 and 6 and therefore, the case as against accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are also liable to be quashed. 11. Holding so, Crl.M.C. Nos. 4613 and 5147 of 2025 stand allowed and all further proceedings pursuant to Final Report in Crime No.RC10/A/2008 of CBI/SPE, Kerala, now pending as C.C. No.1 of 2011 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, stand quashed as against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4. 12. Similarly, Crl.Rev.Pet. No.640 of 2025 also stands allowed and the charge framed against the 5 th accused/revision petitioner in C.C. No.1 of 2011 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, stands set aside and further proceedings as against the 5 th accused in C.C. No.1 of 2011 also stand quashed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.