ANALYSIS & FINDINGS I. ARGUMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS WITHDRAWN EARLIER 24. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 had earlier withdrawn a complaint which he had filed against three accused persons in Saket Courts, Delhi with the liberty to approach appropriate Court, and in these circumstances, Section 257 of Cr.P.C. would come into picture which provides that if a complainant withdraws his complaint against an accused, the Magistrate may permit him to do so, thereby acquitting the accused. While opposing these arguments, it was contended on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the previous complaint qua the present petitioner, who was accused no. 3 therein, was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh in the Court having competent jurisdiction to deal with cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs and the same would not amount to an acquittal. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 had relied on the decision of this Court in case of Satish Dayal Mathur (supra), wherein it was held as under: “17. These observations in my view are very apposite in the facts of the case on hand. Since the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was of the view, though erroneously, that the entire proceedings were illegal because of noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 200, he could not have in all fairness to him passed an order of acquittal in terms of Section 257 the Code and this is what he precisely did. So applying the ratio of the decisions adverted to above which has also been referred to by both the courts below, the order dated 5th August 1983 of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 18 of 50