Complainant seeks time to file the list of remaining witnesses and for further pre summoning evidence. Heard. Allowed. Be put up for further pre summoning…” 27. Thereafter, in the aforesaid complaint case, the learned Magistrate had issued summons to the other two accused persons vide order dated 23.07.2019. 28. It is, thus, noted that in the present case, the respondent no. 2 had withdrawn his earlier complaint i.e. Ct. Cases 5786/2018, only qua accused no. 3, purely on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in Saket Courts to adjudicate a case related to a sitting MLA, who is also the Chief Minister of Delhi. In this regard, this Court also takes note of the fact that pursuant to directions passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Ashvini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. W.P. (C) 699/2016, a notification no. 35/DHC/Gaz./G-1/VI.E.2(a)/2018 dated 23.02.2018 was issued by this Court constituting special Courts to deal with cases against sitting/former MPs/MLAs. 29. As regards the argument regarding applicability of Section 257 of Cr.P.C., it is important to note that the case i.e. Ct. Cases 5786/2018, at the time when complaint qua petitioner herein was withdrawn, was still at the stage of recording of pre-summoning evidence. The petitioner i.e. accused was not before the Court concerned, as he had not yet been summoned, and the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind even to the material before him to arrive at a finding as to whether the accused persons were required Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 20 of 50