1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the order dated 26.3.2010 and discharge the petitioner by quashing the proceedings in Cr.C.15/2010 (EP No.6/2010) pending on the file of the IV Addl. District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The primary facts of the case are as under:

Execution petition under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act read with Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The complainant is a Doctor. The Complainant has presented the complaint against the accused-judgment debtor. It is alleged that the amount ordered/awarded by the Consumer Forum is Rs.7,50,000/-, interest awarded on principal sum is Rs.2,28,575/-, cost awarded is Rs.2,000/-, the advocate fee awarded is Rs.13,875/-. In all, Rs.9,94,450/- was awarded by the Consumer Forum. This amount was not paid by the accused. Therefore, the complainant-decree holder was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The accused has preferred this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consumer Forum is not empowered to try the offence in the absence of notification issued by the Government. In the absence of such notification, the Consumer Forum cannot exercise jurisdiction as a Judicial Magistrate First Class. Even treating the application filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure as complaint for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Consumer Forum is improper.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that Consumer Forum should comply with section 4(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the validity of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act has been upheld in case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S. PARMJIT SINGH & ORS. reported in II (2006) CPJ 6 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“Constitutional validity of Section 27, Consumer Protection Act – Scope of provision of Section 27 prior to and after amendment – By Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, as contained in Section 23 of Amending Act, proviso which was struck down as unconstitutional by High Court, has been omitted – sub-section (2) introduced which provides District Forum or State Commission or National Commission as case may be shall have power of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of offences under Act – On such conferment of powers, District Forum or State Commission or National Commission, on whom powers are conferred, shall be deemed to be Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Code – Amendments effective from 15.3.2003 – Controversy becomes academic – Provision not violative of Article 21 of Constitution – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 27 (as amended), 23 proviso (as amended by Act 2002)”

7. Consumer Protection Act is a self-contained Code. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is set up. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and have been empowered to give reliefs of a specific nature and to award appropriate compensation to consumers. Penalising for non-compliance of the order given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided. Strict rules of evidence and procedure are not contemplated. This being the position, execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure was treated as complaint filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act by the Consumer Forum, which has the jurisdiction