to be summoned or not. Thus, the trial in that complaint case had not yet begun, when the complaint was withdrawn. Having also gone through the decision of this Court in case of Satish Dayal Mathur (supra), this Court is of the opinion the learned MM-01, South-East, Saket Court, Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate complaint case pertaining to the present petitioner, in view of Special Courts constituted by this Court for the purpose of dealing with cases pertaining to sitting/former MPs/MLAs. In view thereof, the learned Magistrate himself did not pass any order of acquittal of the accused no. 3 i.e. petitioner herein. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that such a case would not be covered within the provisions of Section 257 of Cr.P.C., which falls under Chapter XX i.e. „Trial of Summons-Cases By Magistrates‟. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, the case of the complainant qua the present petitioner, being a sitting MLA, could not have been dealt with by the Magistrate concerned. II. THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION 30. As the present case revolves around the offence of defamation, it shall be necessary to first examine and analyse the concept of defamation and defamatory statements, essential ingredients to constitute this offence under Section 499 of IPC and the judicial precedents highlighting the role of courts while issuing summons to an accused in a complaint filed for offence of defamation. Meaning and Definition 31. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 21 of 50