JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 06.10.2021, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una, Camp at Hamirpur, H.P., in E.A. No.07 of 2016, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus Jai Gurudev Tractors, vide which the learned Consumer Forum has passed the following order :- “At this stage, ld. Counsel for complainant/DH stated that he do not want to lead further evidence in absence of accused. Now we switch off to Section 299 Cr.P.C. 1973 as accused has absconded and declared proclaimed person and reference has ordered to be sent in the Proclaimed Offender Register of Police Station concerned. As complainant/DH do not want to lead further evidence so this criminal case u/S 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be consigned to record room u/S 299 Cr.P.C. of 1973 and proceedings in this complaint is to be reopened as and when accused is arrested and brought to this Commission in capacity of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, by the police. Complainant is also given liberty to get the proceedings revived movement when accused is arrested And produced before this Commission and thereafter, accused would be tried for the said offence. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered view that filing of the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 3. The Consumer Protection Act is both substantive as well as procedural law. The order which is intended to be assailed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before this Court has been passed by the learned District Consumer Forum in terms of the powers so conferred upon it under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under :- “27A. The order which is intended to be assailed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before this Court has been passed by the learned District Consumer Forum in terms of the powers so conferred upon it under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under :- “27A. Appeal against order passed under section 27-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from- (a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission; (b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and (c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court. (2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission : Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.” A perusal of this Section demonstrates that the same starts with non-obstante laws and in very unambiguous terms makes it clear that an order passed under Section 27 of the Act is appealable only under Section 27A of Act before the learned State Commission and this is notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. As the present petition is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy being available to the petitioner against the order which stands assailed by this of this petition, the same is dismissed in limini.