earlier complaint case whereas in the statement dated 01.05.2019 recorded in the present case, the respondent no. 2 because of his mala-fide intention, has deposed an entirely different version and named the petitioner. Thus, it is argued that respondent no. 2 has deposed two entirely different versions and purposely named the petitioner, which on the face of it, shows mala-fide intentions and oblique motives. Therefore, in view of these submissions, learned Senior Counsel prays that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside or the case be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for deciding afresh as per law. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 20. Sh. Raghav Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, who seeks to sustain the impugned orders, argues that the allegations made against the respondent no. 2 are false, malicious and defamatory and the same have lowered his reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of the society. It is contended that without there being any proof in support of allegations levelled against the respondent no. 2, the petitioner herein, who is the Chief Minister of Delhi, has retweeted the video, shared by Sh. Dhruv Rathee on his YouTube channel, without verifying its authenticity and due to the large following of the petitioner herein, the video had reached a large number of people not only in India, but internationally also. On these grounds, it is argued that the impugned orders suffer from no infirmity and the learned Trial Court has rightly summoned the petitioner herein in the present case since a prima facie case of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 12 of 50