ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 18.6.2007, passed by District Forum Kullu, in Complaint No. 43/2006 directing the Superintendent of Police, Kullu to register FIR against it under Sections 467, 466, 420 and 471 IPC at the instance of respondent No.1 on his application that was before the Forum. 2.Facts giving rise to this revision are that a complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 alleging over-billing qua his telephone No. 230207 installed at his village Hawai, PO Seobagh, Tehsil and District Kullu. His grievance was that during the period 14.5.2006 to 28.5.2006 said telephone was out of order, whereas he received a telephone bill of Rs. 3602/- for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.5.2006. Further according to him his average telephone bill used to be Rs. 500/- or so for two months. 3.Despite repeated requests to correct the bill, needful was not done by respondent No. 2, therefore, he was not liable to pay the said amount, respondent No. 2 justified the bill and admitted that on 14.5.2006 due to lightening the telephone was burnt, which was replaced by another set on 16.5.2006 and it became functional from 17.5.2006 onwards. Claim of Rs. 3602/- of telephone bill was justified as according to the said respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 had made the phone calls. On print out having been provided, it transpired that large number of calls were made to the subscriber of Airtel Phone No. 9816272745 for long durations. In this background, petitioner was added as respondent in the complaint who under the orders of the District Forum disclosed the name of subscriber being Shyam Sood S/o Sh. Kishori Lal Sood, R/o VPO Maranda. He was added as a party in the complaint and is respondent No. 3 in this revision before us. He has not contested this revision. 4.Shyam Lal Sood newly added respondent appearing on 27.4.2007 and informed that the telephone in question was with his girlfriend Ms. Ganga resident of area Palach. He further stated that he was arrested by the police under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of Ms. Ganga Devi during the period to which this complaint relates. In this background, FIR has been ordered to be registered. Ganga resident of area Palach. He further stated that he was arrested by the police under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of Ms. Ganga Devi during the period to which this complaint relates. In this background, FIR has been ordered to be registered. We are sorry to observe that the District Forum below has pre-judged the entire issue on the statement of Shyam Lal Sood respondent No. 3 before us, by accepting his ipse dixit. 5.A perusal of the record shows that no case was made out nor it exists for justifying the registration of FIR as ordered by the District Forum below by issuing direction to the Superintendent of Police of District Kullu. 6.No relief is otherwise claimed against the petitioner in the complaint, then how FIR could be ordered to be registered against it. Telephone No. 9816272745 is admitted allotted to Shyam Lal Sood the petitioner. It is for him to explain and not for the petitioner as to how the calls have been made from this mobile phone. There was no material placed by him on record to uphold the impugned order. Petitioner is only a service provider to its customers like said Shyam Lal Sood, as such in no case the impugned order can be justified. 7.Mr. Negi learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in fact while allowing this revision, complaint agint his client may be dismissed. While not going into this question we leave it open to be decided by the District Forum below as to whether the complaint is maintainable against the petitioner or not. More especially when grievance of the respondent No. 1 is against respondent No. 2 only and not against the petitioner. Nothing could be pointed by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 to up-hold the impugned order. 8.Before proceeding further in the case, we feel that direction needs to be given to the District Forum below to first determine the question as to whether the complaint can be maintained by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner on the allegations made by him in the complaint, and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by anything said in this order or its earlier order which is impugned in this revision petition. It will proceed now on the basis of the material that is there on the record. 9.No other point is urged. It will proceed now on the basis of the material that is there on the record. 9.No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the direction regarding registration of the case by District Forum below, to Superintendent of Police, District Kullu is hereby quashed and set aside and as a consequence of it there is no question of any investigation/enquiry being conducted by him on the basis of the direction of the District Forum below on the application of respondent No. 1 against the petitioner. As a further consequence of this direction the application for registration of FIR filed by respondent No. 1 stands dismissed. Parties represented in this revision petition are directed to appear before District Forum Mandi on 22.4.2008. No fresh notice will be issued to them in any circumstances and in case any of the party fails to appear then District Forum below shall proceed further in accordance with law. Respondent No. 3 is already ex parte, in proceeding, so no fresh notice is required to be issued to him. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost. M.R.B. ———————