IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 24691 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: November 9, 2011 Gurwinder Singh alias Gogi & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Crl Misc. Nos.M-24691 and 24692 of 2011. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of FIR No.82, dated 31.10.2008, registered under Sections 323, 324, 342, 34 of the IPC, at Police Station Behram, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) on the basis of compromise. Offence under Section 326 IPC in this case was added later. In the connected petition, prayer is made for quashing the cross case in the same FIR. At the time of hearing, the State counsel points out that Crl. Misc. No. M- 24691 of 2011 -2- there are two other FIRs pending against petitioner No.1-Gurinder Singh. One is FIR No. 177, dated 27.6.2005 and another is FIR No.210, dated 5.9.2008. It is also pointed out that one FIR is registered against petitioner No.2- Pawanpreet Singh i.e. FIR No.44 dated 22.4.2010. Even petitioner No.3- Raghubir Singh, who is the complainant in the connected case, is having an FIR under Section 302 IPC registered against him. There is also another FIR pending against the said petitioner (complainant). It is, thus, clear that the petitioners as well as the complainant are habitual offenders. Counsel for the petitioners and the complainant pray for time to confirm this fact. I am not inclined to adjourn this case. These facts were bound to be confirmed and averred in both the petitions being a requirement. The person, who is habitual in getting involved in criminal matters, should not be heard for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise is done only to see the orderly behaviour and a peaceful co-existence in the society. The petitioners, who do not have any respect for law and having tendency to get involved in criminal cases, can not be considered for showing such consideration. It is difficult for such person to behave who would behave in orderly manner and to leave easily their respective criminal misconduct. No case for quashing of FIR under these circumstance is made out. Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. November 9, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE