ORDER :

This Criminal Original petition has been filed seeking to quash the DVA No.2 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

2. This Court has passed an order in Crl.OP Nos.28458, 16411, 33643 of 2019, Crl.OP.Nos.16389, 16450, 17156, 19918, 20434 of 2020 and Crl.OP.Nos.45,73, 138, 184, 191, 213, 216 , 233, 243, 332 and 349 of 2021, dated 18.01.2021 and the guidelines given by this Court will equally apply in the present case also. The relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder :-

46. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had reached the same conclusion in Sukumar Pawanlal Gandhi v Bhakti Sushil Gandhi, (2016) SCC Online Bom 12942. However, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prabhakar Mohite v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2018 Bom, overruled the decision in Sukumar Pawanlal Gandhi, (cited supra). The Full Bench correctly noticed that the character of a proceeding is not dependent upon the nature of the Tribunal but on the nature of the right violated. The Full Bench held, and rightly so, that the nature of the right in a proceeding under the D.V Act is purely civil in nature. Having held so, the Full Bench, nevertheless, found that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C would lie and opined thus:

“53. This would mean that generally the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code would be applicable, to all proceedings taken under sections 12 to 23 and also in respect of the offence under section 31 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided for in the Act including the one under sub-section (2) of section 28. It would then follow that it is not the nature of the proceeding that would be determinative of the general applicability of Criminal Procedure Code to the proceedings referred to in section 28(1) of the D.V. Act, but the intention of the Parliament as expressed by plain and clear language of the section, which would have its last word”

In other words, according to the Full Bench, even though the nature of remedies under the D.V Act are civil in nature, the principle that a nature of the proceeding would determine its character would not apply in view of the intention of Parliament expressed through Section 28, making the Cr.P.C applicable. With all due respect, these observations may not be accurate. There is a presumption that the legislature is presumed to know the law when it enacts a piece of legislation. (See CWT v Bangalore Club, (2020) 9 SCC 599). Parliament must, therefore, be presumed to be aware of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in S.A.L Narayan Row (cited supra), wherein it was held that the true test of the nature of a proceeding must be ascertained with reference to the character of the right violated and reliefs sought thereon and not by the nature of the Court adjudicating such a proceeding. Section 28 of the D.V Act does not and cannot displace this principle. As has already been pointed out, the application of Cr.P.C to a proceeding under Section 12, by virtue of Section 28(1), is residuary in nature.

47. As a matter of fact, the conclusions of the Full Bench appear to be contradictory which is evident from the fact that, at paragraph 40, the Bench agrees that the proceedings under the D.V Act are predominantly civil in nature, and it is only when there is a breach under Section 31 or a failure or refusal by a Protection Officer as contemplated under Section 33, the proceedings assume the character of criminality. Having held so, the Full Bench, at paragraph 56, held that a petition under Section 482 of the Code would lie in view of the express applicability of the Cr.P.C under Section 28(1) of the Act following a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Suo Motu v. Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry, 2016 2 RCR (Cri) 421.

48. Again, with all due respect, it must be pointed out that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.A.L Narayan Row (cited supra) and Ram Kishan Fauji (cited supra), the nature of the Court or the procedure followed by s