N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

These writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1850 of 2011 dated 12.9.2011 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar; Crl.M.P.No.532 of 2012 dated 17.4.2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai; Crl.M.P.No.1851 of 2011 dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar; and Crl.M.P.No.1211 of 2011 dated 23.4.2013 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, respectively, contending that the Chief Judicial Magistrates have no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'), as the provision empowers only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under the provision and therefore the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrates are void ab-initio.

2. When W.P.(MD)No.7155 of 2012 was heard by the Division Bench of this Court, (consisting the Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.K.Agrawal, A.C.J. and Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman) on 5.3.2013, the Division Bench, taking note of the conflicting decisions, rendered by this Court in (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 416 (Indian Overseas Bank v. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd.); the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court, reported in (IndusInd Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra); and Bombay High Court in the decision reported in 2009 (2) DRTC 431 (Bom) (Arjun Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Solapur v. C.J.M., Solapur), thought fit to refer the matter to the larger Bench. The said reference reads as follows:

"The Writ petition herein challenges the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, in the application filed by the bank to take possession of the secured asset, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act" in short).

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court reported in (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 416 in Indian Overseas Bank v. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd., wherein this Court has taken the view that reference to 'Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would include the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area, for the purpose of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

3. Placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.214 of 2008 with Criminal Writ Petition No.215 of 2008, reported in the case of IndusInd Bank Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, as well as another decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 2009 (2) D.R.T.C. 431 (Bom) in Arjun Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Solapur v. C.J.M., Solapur, taking a contra view that an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has to be filed only before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, learned senior counsel submitted that by reason of the clear statutory provision under Section 14, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 14. He pointed out that the Bombay High Court specifically viewed that the provision of Cr.P.C., particularly Section 3(2), cannot be read with Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for the purpose of understanding as to whether the reference to 'Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would include Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area. Referring to Section 30 of the SARFAESI Act, he submitted that the proceedings under the Act being one for recovery and hence civil in nature, Cr.P.C. has no relevance.

4. We have perused the judgment of this Court and the judgments of the Bombay High Court. Seen in the context of the object of Central Legislation, viz., the SARFAESI Act, and that of the contra decisions pronounced by the Bombay High Cour