ORDER : 1. By this writ application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Learned 13th Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dated 30.10.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.34750 of 2014 which is annexure-B (C ) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide Exh.6, dated 31.01.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Application being 286 of 2017, which is at annexure-D (D) Pass any such other and further orders, as deemed just and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be summarized as under: 2.1 The writ applicant herein is the original complainant (husband) and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 (Respondent No.1 wife and Respondent No.2 brother-in-law) in the main proceedings. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred to as per their litigative status before the trial court. 2.2 The original complainant filed a private complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara stating that he got married with the accused No.1 on 21.12.2008 at Bhusavar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan as per Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the accused No.1 started residing with the original complainant at Vadodara. 2.3 It is alleged that the marital life initially was quite happy and peaceful, but shortly thereafter, the behaviour of the accused No.1 was suddenly changed which was not even imagined by the original complainant and his family members. 2.4 On 06.12.2008, the brother of the accused No.1 came to the house of the original complaint and voluntarily took the accused No.1 with him. Then, after some days, the accused No.2 phoned the original complainant and scolded him as to why he is not doing any job and also threatened him that if he denies to go for a job, then be ready to face consequences. Then, after some days, the accused No.2 phoned the original complainant and scolded him as to why he is not doing any job and also threatened him that if he denies to go for a job, then be ready to face consequences. It was the first time that the accused No.2 threatened the complainant. 2.5 Then, on 19.12.2008, the original complainant took the accused No.1 back to her matrimonial home, however, the accused No.1 continued showing his unpleasant behaviour and often entered into an altercation with the family members on trivial issues. However, just to save his matrimonial life, the complainant always tried to persuade the accused No.1. 2.6 It is further alleged that the accused No.1 was having some bad habits like eating tobacco and talking on the phone with somebody without the knowledge of the original complainant etc. It is also alleged that before the marriage, the complainant was told that the accused No.1 is having the degree of M.A., however, when the original complainant wanted to get the mediclaim, he asked for her school leaving certificate and the degree certificate of M.A. as well as the ration card, however, the family members of the accused No.1 very bluntly denied to give the same which created suspicion in the mind of the original complainant about the age of the accused No.1 and, therefore, he went to Bhusavar and inquired about the same whereupon he came to know that the accused No.1 is elder than the original complainant. Thus, the accused No.1 has cheated him and got married with him by hiding her real age. 2.7 Thereafter, on 03.03.2009, the accused No.2 came to Vadodara for taking the accused No.1 with him, however, the father of the original complainant declined to send the accused No.1, upon which, the accused No.2 got enranged and started altercation with the father of the original complainant and threatened to face the consequences. At that time, the uncle of the accused Nos.1 and 2, namely, Amarsinh also threatened the complainant to send the accused No.1 along with accused No.2, otherwise, ready to face the consequences. Ultimately, the accused No.2 took the accused No.1 along with him against the will and wish of the original complainant despite the fact that at that time, the accused No.1 was pregnant. 2.8. Ultimately, the accused No.2 took the accused No.1 along with him against the will and wish of the original complainant despite the fact that at that time, the accused No.1 was pregnant. 2.8. Thereafter, attempts were made by the original complainant to contract the accused No.1 but in vain as the accused No.2 did not allow the complainant to talk to the accused No.1. Thereafter, the original complainant came to know that it was all pre-planned and when the accused No.1 went along with the accused No.2, she stolen certain ornaments of the mother of the complainant as well as some cash amount. Therefore, on the next day, when the complainant asked her about the said ornaments, she told the complainant that as there is a marriage function in the family, she took the ornaments and cash and will bring the same when she will return to home. It is also alleged that when the accused No.1 left her matrimonial home, she was two months pregnant and her treatment was going on at Jamnabai Hospital and at that time, her health was good. However, after the accused No.2 forcibly took her at her parental home, they all in a pre- planned manner, got aborted the foetus of almost six months and thereby committed the offence of illegal abortion. Therefore, when the original complainant came to know about the same, he tried to contact the accused No.1, however, the accused No.2 did not allow the original complainant to talk with the accused No.1 and threatened the complainant of dire consequences, for which, the original complainant gave a written complaint to the Panigate Police Station on 24.11.2009, however, the police did not pay any heed to the said complaint and, therefore, the original complainant constrained to file a private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2.9 Pursuant to the filing of the aforesaid private complaint which was registered as Criminal Inquiry No.39 of 2011, the learned Magistrate issued a process to the original accused persons, pursuant to which, the Criminal Inquiry Case No.39 of 2011 was culminated in Criminal Case No.34750 of 2014 which was rejected by the learned 13th Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara vide its order dated 30.10.2017 and acquitted the original accused persons of any charges. 2.10 Being aggrieved, the original complainant approached the learned Sessions Court, Vadodara by filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. being Revision Application No.286 of 2017. The learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide is order dated 31.01.2018 dismissed the said revision application and uphold the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30.10.2017. Hence, the original complainant is here before this Court with the present application. 3. Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad appearing for the writ applicant submits that the marriage the marriage between the writ applicant and the accused No.1 was solemnized on 21.12.2008 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and, thereafter, they started residing together under one roof as husband and wife. However, after sometime, disputes cropped up between the writ applicant and the accused No.1 and they got separated. Therefore, the accused No.1 filed a complaint against the writ applicant under Section 498A etc. of the IPC and the writ applicant also filed a private complaint against the accused No.1-wife and his brother under Sections 379, 380, 312, 316, 506 read with Section 114 of the IPC on 19.04.2010 and on the very same day, the verification of the complainant- husband was also recorded. He further submits that before filing of the private complaint, the complainant-husband had made an application in the form of a complaint before the concerned police station which was pending and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered the investigation of both the complaints to be carried out together and sought opinion of the concerned Investigating Officer under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the investigation was carried out and ultimately, at the end of day, the concerned investigating officer submitted a detailed report before the Magistrate which was partly accepted by he learned Magistrate and issued process against the original accused persons under Sections 406, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and without properly considering the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them vide order dated 30.10.2017. The said order was then challenged by the original complainant by filing a revision application before the learned Sessions Court, and the learned Sessions Judge also, without taking into consideration the materials available on record in its true spirit, dismissed the said revision application and confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dated 30.10.2017 by observing that there was a delay in filing the private complaint as also the same is nothing but a counter blast to the complaint filed by the wife under Section 498A etc. of the IPC and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Kakkad submits that the orders passed by both the courts below are unjust, illegal, arbitrary and not based upon the sound principles of law. Learned advocate further submits that the observations made by both the courts below as regards delay in filing the complaint are erroneous one as the delay has been very deliberately explained by the complainant in the complaint itself specifically stating that the complainant was given assurance by the original accused persons that they would return all the ornaments whenever the accused No.1 returns back to her matrimonial home after attending the marriage function of her paternal relatives and, therefore, the original complainant waited for some time and when the accused No.2 did not turn back, the complainant first made a complaint with the police authority and then filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate which fact has not been considered by both the courts below in its true and proper perspective. He further submits that so far as the observation that the complaint filed by the original complainant is a counter blast to the complaint filed by the accused No.1 is concerned, the same is absolutely vague and erroneous one as first of all, the original complainant sent a legal notice to the accused No.1 on 01.05.2009 to come back to her matrimonial home and immediately after issuance of such notice, the accused No.1 filed a complaint against the original complainant under Section 498A etc. of the IPC and, therefore, the complaint filed by the accused No.1 can be said to be the counter blast to the notice issued by the original complainant. of the IPC and, therefore, the complaint filed by the accused No.1 can be said to be the counter blast to the notice issued by the original complainant. He also submits that due to the cohabitation between them, the accused No.1 got pregnant, however, after the accused No.2 took the accused No.1 with him at her parental home, they all, in connivance with each other, got the pregnancy terminated without the knowledge of the original complainant which compelled the applicant to initiate the legal proceedings against his wife and brother-in-law and all those aspects have not been considered by both the courts below in its true perspective and passed the impugned orders which are required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Upon service of notice, learned advocate Mr. Daxay P. Bhatt filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, today when the matter is taken up for hearing, none remains present on behalf of the original accused persons. 6. The present application has been vehemently opposed by Learned APP Mr. Dabhi. He submits that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are just, proper, reasonable and based upon the sound principle of law and do not require to be interfered with. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi submits that the learned Magistrate after properly appreciating the materials available on record, acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them which has also been confirmed by the revisional court and, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below do not require any interference at the end of this Court. Moreover, before filing a private complaint, the original complainant also made an application before the concerned police station and, therefore, both the complaints were ordered to be investigated together by the learned Magistrate and a report was sought for. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the concerned investigator and after considering the report, wherein it has been specifically stated that no case is made out against the accused persons, the learned Magistrate passed an order discharging the accused persons of all the charges which was then confirmed by the revisional court and, therefore, the same being just, proper and reasonable, are not required to be interfered with. Hence, the present application deserves to be rejected. 7. Hence, the present application deserves to be rejected. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the impugned orders should be quashed? 8. The case on hand relates to a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. It appears from the materials available on record on one hand, the original complainant raised a grievance that after the marriage, the accused No.1 denied to make any cohabitation with him and on the other hand, the allegations have been made that when the accused No.2 forcibly took the accused No.1 with him, she was pregnant and later the said pregnancy was being terminated by them and, therefore, there appears to be a contradictory version in the complaint filed by the complainant itself which has been taken note of by the learned Magistrate at the time of passing the impugned order which has subsequently been confirmed by the appellate court. It is further observed by the learned Magistrate that the original complainant also made allegations of theft of certain ornaments of his mother by the accused No.1, however, looking to the deposition given by the complainant in his cross-examination wherein he has very categorically admitted that to prove the ownership of the ornaments alleged to have been stolen by the accused No.1, he has not produced a single documents regarding his ownership over the said articles and, therefore, there appears to be no case of any criminal breach of trust made out against the original accused persons, and the said findings recorded by the learned Magistrate and later confirmed by the revisional court, in my opinion, do not require any interference by this Court. 9. Here before this Court also, the original complainant reiterates the very same facts as has already been pleaded in the proceedings before the courts below, however, I find that the said facts have already been examined twice, once by the learned Magistrate and subsequently in a revision by the revisional court and both have found the claim of the original complainant incorrect and they have recorded the findings of fact. Even learned counsel for the original complainant could not show that the findings recorded by both the courts below are incorrect, perverse and contrary to record. 10. Even learned counsel for the original complainant could not show that the findings recorded by both the courts below are incorrect, perverse and contrary to record. 10. In these circumstances, when concurrent findings have been recorded by the two courts below and same having not been shown to be perverse and contrary to record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same, since, the claim of the original complainant involves investigation into facts which has already been examined twice and findings have been recorded against the original complainant. Such concurrent findings cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India as if I am sitting in appeal, since scope of judicial review in writ petition is not like an Appellate Court. 11. The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. 12. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the trial courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 13. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee, reported in 1953 SC 58 the Hon’ble Apex Court held; "Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." 14. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 and made the following observations; "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. Amarnath and another, reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 and made the following observations; "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193 , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors". 15. For interference under Article 227, the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 ; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746 ; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896 ; Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 ; Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300 ; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47 ). 16. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341 ; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70 ; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 143 ). 17. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, reported in AIR 2000 SC 931 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse. 18. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse. 18. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 19. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below. 20. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4 ; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; and Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319 . 21. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Court said: "...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 22. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others, (2010) 2 SCC 432 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 23. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 244 , the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. 23. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 244 , the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227. 24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned orders passed by the learned 13th Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara dated 30.10.2017 as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara vide Exh.6 dated 31.01.2018, and the claim of the original complainant, therefore, cannot be accepted. The present writ application, lacks merit and hence, is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.