( 1 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 2 ) SRI B. Parameshwara Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner in Crl. R. C. (SR) 23929 of 2004 would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances explained, the delay in preferring the criminal r. C. to be condoned. The learned counsel also would contend that on the same set of facts, acquittal had been recorded in C. C. 506 of 1998 and on that ground alone, C. C. No. 45 of 2002 cannot be quashed. The learned counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the State had not preferred any appeal against the acquittal recorded in C. C. No. 506 of 1998, the de-facto complainant thought it fit to file the criminal R. C. aforesaid and hence, the delay may have to be condoned and the criminal petition at any rate may not be allowed. The learned counsel also would comment that even otherwise, liberty may be given to the petitioners to move an appropriate praying for discharge and hence, no relief can be granted in the present criminal petition. ( 3 ) SRI Subba Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in Crl. Petition no. 6155 of 2002 would contend that the delay in preferring the criminal R. C. is inordinate and apart from it, the acquittal recorded in C. C. No. 506 of 1998 is being questioned only with a view to put the petitioners in the present criminal petition into trouble, inasmuch as the petitioners are praying for quashing of the complaint in c. C. No. 45 of 2002, being on the same set of facts, on the ground of double jeopardy. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the other factual details. ( 4 ) HEARD both the learned counsel. ( 5 ) THE factual matrix in detail had been narrated in criminal petition No. 6155 of 2002. It is not in serious controversy that an acquittal had been recorded on the same set of facts in C. C. No. 506 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Nellore. ( 5 ) THE factual matrix in detail had been narrated in criminal petition No. 6155 of 2002. It is not in serious controversy that an acquittal had been recorded on the same set of facts in C. C. No. 506 of 1998 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Nellore. It is also not in serious controversy that as against the acquittal recorded in C. C. No. 506 of 19 (98, the State had not preferred any appeal questioning the said order of acquittal, but, however, the de factocomplainant with a delay had presented crl. R. C. (SR) No. 23929 of 2004 referred to supra. ( 6 ) ON a careful perusal of the averments made in support of the application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that criminal R. C. had been thought of along with the application for condonation of delay only with a view to get over the acquittal order made in C. C. No. 506 of 1998, especially in the light of the criminal petition, which was moved by the petitioners in Crl. Petition No. 6155 of 2002 on the file of this Court to quash the further proceedings in c. C. No. 45 of 2002. Hence, this Court is satisfied that not only the delay was not properly explained, even otherwise, there are no bona fides on the part of the de facto complainant in making the said criminal R. C. and accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. ( 7 ) THE next aspect to be considered is that whether the petitioners to be driven again to make an appropriate application pleading for discharge or whether the proceedings are to be quashed as prayed for in the criminal petition. ( 8 ) IT is not in serious controversy that on the same set of facts, an order of acquittal had been recorded by the competent criminal court in C. C. No. 506 of 1998. It is no doubt unfortunate that the other complaint filed in relation to the same set of facts C. C. 45 of 2002 was not clubbed with C. C. No. 506 of 1998. It is also stated that the pendency of c. C. No. 45 of 2002 was in fact, referred to in the judgment made in C. C. No. 506 of 1998. It is also stated that the pendency of c. C. No. 45 of 2002 was in fact, referred to in the judgment made in C. C. No. 506 of 1998. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the acquittal recorded in C. C. No. 506 of 1998 in a way had attained finality, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be just to continue the proceedings in C. C. No. 45 of 2002, which would be only a futile exercise. Even otherwise, it would amount to double jeopardy. Viewed from any angle, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, C. C. No. 45 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Special mobile Court, Nellore are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is hereby allowed.