passing the impugned summoning order, has failed to consider the exceptions provided under Section 499 of IPC, including the exception of public good, and has recorded an erroneous finding that at this stage, the consideration is whether there exists sufficient grounds to summon or not. 18. Further, it is also argued by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent no. 2 had initially filed a complaint i.e. Ct. Cases 5786/2018 in Saket Courts, South East District, Delhi and on 18.10.2018, he had got his statement recorded before the concerned Magistrate and had withdrawn the complaint qua the petitioner, and accordingly the proceedings qua the petitioner herein were dropped. It is submitted that withdrawal/dropping of proceedings qua an accused in complaint case amounts to acquittal of the accused as per Section 257 of Cr.P.C, therefore, no cause of action whatsoever survives against the petitioner herein and the respondent no. 2 cannot be allowed to bypass the mandate of law by filing a fresh complaint case. It is therefore argued that respondent no. 2 had withdrawn his earlier complaint qua the petitioner and had instituted a subsequent complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner through his retweet had defamed the respondent no. 2, without arraying the other accused persons in the present complaint. It is submitted that only recourse available to the respondent no. 2 was to approach this Court under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 19. It is also contended that the petitioner was not named by the respondent no. 2 in his statement dated 18.10.2018 recorded in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 11 of 50