vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1533 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1533 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1533 OF 2008 Shabana Shamim ... Applicant V/s. Zubair Ahmed & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Monica Sakhrani for Applicant Mr.B.R. Ramchandani for Respondent No.1 Mr.H.J. Dedhi, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 9, 2008 JUNE 9, 2008 JUNE 9, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The present application has been filed for quashing C.R. No.518 of 2007 registered by Bandra Police against Respondent No.1 for offences punishable u/s 498A and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant and Respondent No.1 were married on 10.2.2007. Respondent No.2 had divorced his wife, the applicant herein, by a triple talaq. Certain proceedings were instituted by the applicant under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as well as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. C.R. No.518 of 2007 was registered with the Bandra Police station on 5.12.2007 on a complaint made by the applicant regarding offences punishable under section 498A and 506 against the Respondent No.1. It appears that Respondent No.1 and the applicant had arrived at a Memorandum of Understanding on 5.5.2008 which is annexed to the present petition as Exhibit B. It is in these : 2 : circumstances that the applicant seeks orders from this Court quashing the FIR lodged by her against Respondent No.1. 2. It is well settled that when offences which are not compoundable are settled between the parties especially those relating to personal disputes, the High Court can quash the proceedings against the accused. 3. The High Court can also under section 482 quash the FIR lodged complaining of commission of offences under section 498A. In the case of B.S. Joshi v/s. State of Haryana & anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 AIR 2003 SC 1386 AIR 2003 SC 1386, the Supreme Court has held that when the possibility of conviction is remote, there would be no purpose in keeping the prosecution or a complaint pending. The Supreme Court has observed that a hypertechnical view of not quashing such a complaint is against the object for which the provision of section 498A was added to the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, there is already a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties and the applicant who is present in Court has sought orders from this Court for quashing the FIR. 4. In these circumstances, I see no reason to deny the prayer made by the applicant. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.