JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. The Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint on 31-12-1991, against the present applicants and it came to be registered as R.C.C. No.354/91 in the Court of C.J.M. Jalna. It was alleged by respondent No.1 in the complaint that he is the consumer of domestic gas with Agency of Chandulal T. Parikh and his consumer No.6576. The applicants, who had good relations with Respondent No.1, did not have gas connection and therefore, on their request he had given his gas connection to the applicants on temporary basis. After taking the gas connection and cylinder on temporary basis, the applicant avoided to return the same. Therefore, a notice was issued by the Respondent No.1 which was received by them on 4-10-1991. Inspite of the notice, they did not return the said cylinder and the gas connection. In view of this, on the complaint of the Respondent No.1 offence U/s.406 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was registered and process was issued. On 6-2-1992 an application was filed whereby the complainant sought permission to compound the offence with one accused and to withdraw the complaint against another accused. Permission was granted. Thus in respect of one accused complaint was withdrawn and in respect of another accused it was compounded with permission of the Court and the present applicants were acquitted of the charge. On 57-1993 the Respondent No.1 filed a fresh complaint based on the same facts and it was registered as R.C.C. No.130/93 on the file of C.J.M. Jalna. In para 8 of that complaint it was alleged that the accused had assured that he would return the articles, hence the complainant had withdrawn the earlier complaint but inspite of that the accused had not returned the same, hence the fresh complaint. On this complaint also process was issued. The applicant challenged the issuance of process in Criminal Rev. Petition No.79/93. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed that Revision Petition by judgment dated 21-9-1996, holding that it was a continuing offence and therefore, it was not barred by limitation as alleged by the accused applicants. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Revision Petition, the applicants have preferred the present application U/s.482 of Cr.P.c. invoking inherent powers of this Court. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed that Revision Petition by judgment dated 21-9-1996, holding that it was a continuing offence and therefore, it was not barred by limitation as alleged by the accused applicants. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Revision Petition, the applicants have preferred the present application U/s.482 of Cr.P.c. invoking inherent powers of this Court. 3. The record clearly reveals that in earlier complaint R.C.C. No.354/91, case was partly withdrawn and partly compounded with permission of the Court as required U/s.257 and 320 of Cr.P.C on the basis of the said compromise, the learned C.J.M. had passed an order of acquittal of both the accused. Section 257, CLP.C. provides that where the complaint is withdrawn with permission of the Court, it shall pass an order of acquittal. Section 320 subsection (8) Cr.P.c. also clearly provides that composition of an offence under this Section shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. In view of the fact that said complaint was compound in respect of one and withdrawn in respect of another accused and the accused were acquitted, on the basis of the same facts the accused could not be prosecuted again. Even though in para 8 of the second complaint it was alleged that the accused had assured to return the articles and in view of the said assurance, the complaint was withdrawn but the accused had not returned the same, in the application Exh.l0 filed in R.C.C. No.354/91 seeking permission to withdrawn and to compound the offence, no such assurance was referred to. In fact that application clearly revealed that the compliant was result of misunderstanding between the parties and no offence as such was committed. There was no mention that the accused had assured to return the cylinder or gas connection and therefore, the matter was being withdrawn of compounded. If on the same facts it was clearly stated that it was result of misunderstanding and no offence was committed, it is difficult to understand how on the same facts, the complaint could file second complaint prosecuting the accused persons again, particularly after they were acquitted. 4. If on the same facts it was clearly stated that it was result of misunderstanding and no offence was committed, it is difficult to understand how on the same facts, the complaint could file second complaint prosecuting the accused persons again, particularly after they were acquitted. 4. Section 300(1), CLP.C. provides that a person who has once been tried by Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence. As pointed out above in view of the provisions of Sections 257 and 320(8) withdrawal of complaint and compounding of offence respectively has the effect of acquittal and as long as the acquittal remains in force, for the same offence based on the same facts the accused cannot be tried again. 5. In view of the legal position stated above, it is clear that once the applicants were acquitted in view of the withdrawal of the complaint or compounding of offence with permission of the Court, on the same facts the applicants could not be prosecuted and tried again. The Courts below have not taken into consideration this aspect. In given circumstances, on second complaint the issuance of process amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. To prevent the abuse of process of the Court, it will be necessary for this Court to intervene invoking inherent powers U/s.482, CLP.C. 6. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed. Process issued by the learned C.J.M., Jalna in R.C.C. No.130/93 on the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Application allowed.