AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri R.K. Mishra learned Counsel for the complain­ant and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli­cants submits that in this case three FIRs have been lodged and cognizance has eventually been taken on the charge-sheet filed by the police of Kanpur Nagar and proceedings have taken place in case No. 27 of 2008, under sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar and the cog­nizance order was passed on 16.1.2008 by the aforesaid Magistrate on the basis of the charge-sheet. It is argued by the learned Coun­sel for the applicants that no action should have been taken on the basis of three FIRs.
(3.) IN this connection learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has drawn my attention to an order passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14322 of 2007 pre­ferred by the applicants wherein the Divi­sion Bench of this Court observed that a second FIR ought not to have been regis­tered with regard to the same allegations. However, the Bench disposed of the matter with the direction that the FIR registered on 25.6.2007 may be taken for the purpose of investigation and the second FIR may be merged into the same and it is for the Kanpur Nagar district police authorities to take appropriate action with regard to the in­vestigation whether it may be done by Manila Thana or police station Baddhad Naka or any other as the authorities as may deem fit.;