learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the previous complaint cannot operate as an acquittal within the meaning of Section 257 so as to bar subsequent prosecution of the petitioner on the same facts.” 25. This Court notes that in the present case, the respondent no. 2 herein had filed a complaint i.e. Ct. Cases 5786/2018, titled „Vikas Sankritayan @ Vikas Pandey v. Dhruv Rathee & Ors.‟ on 04.07.2018 for offence under Section 499/500 of IPC against three accused persons i.e. Sh. Dhruv Rathee (the original author), one Sh. Mahavir Prasad Khileri and Sh. Arvind Kejriwal i.e. the petitioner herein. On 18.10.2018, the complainant had tendered his pre-summoning evidence, and on the same date, he had also given a statement before the learned MM-01, South-East, Saket Court, Delhi that he wishes to withdraw his complaint against accused no. 3 with liberty to file afresh before the court of competent jurisdiction. This statement reads as under: “On SA I wish to withdraw my complaint against alleged No. 3 Sh. Arvind Kejriwal with liberty to file the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. I may be permitted for the same. RO & AC” 26. Further, on the same day, the following order was passed by the learned Magistrate: “Complainant submits that he wishes to withdraw his complaint qua alleged No. 3 Sh. Arvind Kejriwal with liberty to file fresh complaint as per law in the court having competent jurisdiction. Statement of the complainant is separately recorded to this effect and name of alleged No. 3 is dropped accordingly. Complainant is examined as CW1 and discharged. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 19 of 50