These two petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the question raised is identical.

2. Both these petitions have been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records in pending prosecutions and quash the proceedings therein as not maintainable on the sole ground that the investigating Agency had not followed the provisions of police, Standing Order (for short 'P.S.O.') 588A.

3. Facts in each of the petitions need not have to be stated, for, both the counsel fairly state that in respect of the same incident, two complaints had been given by opposite parties both of which resulted in final reports being filed by the investigating Agency.

4. The question, whether non-observance of the provisions of P.S.O. 588A would constitute illegality comes up for consideration quite often and it will be better to set at rest any controversy so that similar petitions canvassing this issue could be avoided in future.

5. All the decisions of this Court and a few of the apex Court have been placed before me. It is better to initially look into the law enuneiated by the Supreme Court about the extent of validity of P.S.O. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venugopal, 1964 AIR