JAYANT M. PATEL, J.

1. Special Criminal Application No. 5313 of 2015 out of which the present reference is made by learned Single Judge to the Division Bench of this Court is preferred by the petitioners seeking to quash and set aside the complaint being Case No. 1992 of 2009 filed by respondent No. 2 therein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which has been filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. When the said matter came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) taking up Special Criminal Applications (quashing) on 15.9.2015, the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order:

"1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-original accused, have prayed for the following reliefs;

(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(b) Your Lordships further be pleased to quash and set aside the complaint being Case No. 1992 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the further proceedings/investigation in connection with the complaint being Case No. 1992 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in the interest of justice.

(d) Any other and further orders which Your Lordships deem fit and proper be kindly passed in the interest of justice.

2. These very petitioners had, in fact, preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 7749 of 2009 praying for the same reliefs and the said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24th August, 2015, which reads as under:

"By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants original accused seek to quash the proceedings of the Case No. 1992 of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 1, Ahmedabad.

Mr. Dave, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.

Permission as prayed for is granted. This application is disposed of as not pressed.

I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter."

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants had thought fit to withdraw the Criminal Misc. Application No. 7749 of 2009 in view of the decision of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Narendrakumar alias Nitinkumar Manilal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2014 (2) GLR 1353 wherein the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are not criminal in nature and, therefore, the remedy would be to invoke civil jurisdiction and not the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code. It appears that a Co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated 27th July, 2015 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 15687 of 2014 dissented with such view. Although, there is a reference of Narendra Kumar (supra) in para-2(ii) of the judgment, yet I do not find anything in the judgment on the basis of which it could be said that Narendra Kumar (supra) has been held to be per incuriam or not a good law.

4. Whether a writ proceeding is civil or criminal, depends on the nature of relief claimed and grounds for such