$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010297452022 + CRL.REV.P. 499/2022 SURESH PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate with petitioner in person. Versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Principal Judge South East District, Saket, Delhi (“Impugned Order”) whereby the petitioner’s application under Order 47 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 08.04.2016 has dismissed. The petitioner has also sought initiation of proceedings against respondent no. 2, under section 340 of the CrPC, for having allegedly misrepresented and concealed material facts. 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent no. 2 while withdrawing its application for maintenance before the Court below did not disclose to the factum of her having already obtained an ex party interim order in her favour. He contends that she, therefore, ought not to have been permitted to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:06:57 withdraw her case; and rather a prosecution under Sections 340 r/w 195(1)(b) and (3) of the CrPC should be initiated against her. 3. In Pandit Digamber Sharma v. Ram Prakash Anand and Ors.,1 this Court, after relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah,2 held that an offence under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC shall get attracted only when the offending action concerns, inter alia, manipulation or forgery of a document which is already in custodia legis of the concerned Court and not in respect of a document which has been fabricated prior to its production in Court. The material portion of the said decision reads as under: “11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing the legal position has held that the decision in the case of Sachida Nand Singh (Supra) has laid down the correct law. It has been held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision has been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal.” 4. Insofar as the question of withdrawal is concerned, it is trite law, that a person initiating an action in a Court of law is the dominus litus, he/she may withdraw the case at any time, and the other party cannot force the continuation of such a case against himself/herself. 5. The Impugned Order, therefore, does not deserve to be interdicted. No case is made out for initiating prosecution under Section 340 r/w 195(1)(b) and (3) of the CrPC. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The appellant is, however, granted liberty to take such appropriate recourse as may be 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2657. 2(2005) 4 SCC 370. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:06:57 available to him in accordance with law. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 Nc/Rao This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:06:57