Judgment : This is an application under Sec.482, Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.116 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramakudi. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.116 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramakudi. One Veeraperumal has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi for the occurrence stated to have happened on 19.3.1984 at 5 P.M., near Paramakudi within the limits of Paramakudi Police Station. The case has been registered in Crime No.91 of 1984 of Paramakudi Police Station. For the same occurrence the 1st petitioner herein, namely A1 gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi who registered the same in Crime No.90 of 1984 under Secs.323 and 324, I.P.C., against one Veeraperumal and three others. After investigation, both the cases had been charge-sheeted by the Police. After the receipt of the process, the petitioners have come forward with this application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the procedure adopted by the police in charging both the cases, arising out of the same transaction is illegal and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the Court below are liable to be quashed. He would further amplify his arguments by stating that the investigating machinery, in respect of the complaint and counter complaint, arising out of the same transaction, should enquire into both of them and adopt one or other of the two courses, namely to charge the case where the accused were aggressors or to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. If the Investigating Officer finds that choices of either course is difficult, namely to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly. The learned counsel would further submit that the investigating machinery in this case, has not adopted the procedure as indicated above. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw the attention of the Court to Sec.588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders. A cursory perusal of this provision would make it abundantly clear that the charging of both the cases, arising out of the same transaction, is clearly illegal and such a course cannot at all be adopted. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw the attention of the Court to Sec.588-A of the Madras Police Standing Orders. A cursory perusal of this provision would make it abundantly clear that the charging of both the cases, arising out of the same transaction, is clearly illegal and such a course cannot at all be adopted. In such circumstances, there is no other go except to hold that charging both the cases, arising out of the same transaction, is illegal and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the Court below are liable to be quashed. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.116 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramakudi.