defamation is made out against the petitioner and the issues which the petitioner has raised by way of this petition are all triable in nature. 21. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the earlier complaint filed by respondent no. 2 before the Saket Courts, Delhi was withdrawn qua the present petitioner only since the said Court was not competent to try any matter in relation to the petitioner herein, who is an MLA and Chief Minister of Delhi, and therefore, the respondent no. 2 had no option but to withdraw the complaint from the previous Court with liberty to file a fresh complaint against the petitioner in the court which is competent to try cases pertaining to MPs/MLAs. In this regard, reliance is also placed on decision of this Court in case of Satish Dayal Mathur v. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company MANU/DE/0240/1986 to argue that Section 257 of Cr.P.C would not be applicable. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 prays that the present petition be dismissed. 22. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and has gone through the material placed on record and written submissions filed by both the parties. THE ORDERS IMPUGNED BEFORE THIS COURT 23. The learned Trial Court, while summoning the petitioner herein vide order dated 17.07.2019, had passed the following order: “11. Defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of a person. It is a publication which tends to lower a person's reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally or which make Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 13 of 50