M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. First respondent filed Annexure - A complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki for an order directing third respondent therein not to change the water connection available to her home and for a further direction that she shall be furnished with water supply unobstructed and also for a damages of Rupees Ten thousand and a cost of Rupees three thousand. In Annexure - A complaint it is alleged by the first respondent that her water connection is being obstructed by the third respondent shown therein. Annexure - B order was passed in the said petition on 04/06/2010, directing notice to the respondents and restraining the respondents from disconnecting the water connection of the first respondent. Annexure - C petition was thereafter filed by the first respondent under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act contending that in violation of Annexure - B order, on 06/06/2010 at about 2 p.m., third respondent, along with the Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constables, disconnected the water connection. It was also alleged that when Annexure - B order was shown to the Sub Inspector, first respondent was abused and on 07/06/2010 at about 11 a.m., respondents reconnected the water connection. It is contended that disconnection of the water supply is punishable under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act. In the proceedings initiated as ST No. 33/2010 under S.27 of Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Redressal Forum passed Annexure - D order incorporating the petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police, in the array of accused. The order reads:

Heard. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha, after perusing the order from the forum shown by the complainant, disconnected the water connection of the complainant with the help of other opposite parties. He also abused and threatened the complainant that she may be made as accused in fabricated cases, when the complainant tried to obstruct the same. So the Sub Inspector may also be included in the array of accused.

The sworn statement of the complainant itself says that the Sub Inspector of Police Mr. Shinto Kurian, leaded the opposite parties to disconnect the water connection of the complainant even after showing the order from the Forum. So, we think that the police officer, who is in - charge of law and order, who must help the complainant for implementing the order, he himself disobeyed the same. Hence, the IA No. 51/2010 allowed. The Sub Inspector of Police namely, Shinto Kurian, is also arrayed as accused as per S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

This petition is filed under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure - D order, as Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum could not have included the petitioner, who does not come within the ambit of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act, as an accused, invoking the power under S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner would contend that even if the powers under S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked, evidence should be let in and when no evidence was let it, the order is illegal.

2. Sub-s.(1) of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act provides that where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commissioner, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Sub-section (2) of S.27 of Consumer Protection Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the trial of offences