In some cases, a criminal judge, in order to adjudicate Offense A and assess the fulfillment of its constitutive elements, is compelled to first determine whether Offense B has been committed. This necessity arises because the legislature, in defining Offense A and enumerating the components of its material element, has required the complete realization of another offense. Therefore, unless the full commission of Offense B—with all its constituent elements—is proven, one of the essential components of the material element of Offense A necessarily remains unproven. However, the judge may be unable to examine or establish Offense B due to the presence of a procedural obstacle, such as the statute of limitations, the complainant’s waiver, or the absence of conditions stipulated in Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Employing a descriptive–analytical methodology and drawing upon library sources, this study reviews the various interpretive and procedural approaches to the problem. It explains the shortcomings of proposed solutions such as the summary determination of Offense B, criminal-on-criminal dependency, suspension of proceedings, and issuance of an order to discontinue prosecution. Ultimately, it argues that issuing a non-prosecution order or an acquittal with respect to Offense A constitutes the most defensible and coherent interpretation consistent with the procedural and substantive principles of criminal law.