JUDGMENT : Heard Shri G. Teles, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 482 and 483 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing and setting aside Final Report/Chargesheet bearing No.40/2020 under Sections 353, 427, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda in FIR no. 13/2020. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner is the original accused no.1 before the learned JMFC Ponda alongwith Ms. Ashwani Khandolkar who is arrayed as accused no.2 5. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the complaint dated 24.1.2020 filed by one Shri Dilip Gaonkar, Head Constable buckle no. 4361, FIR No. 13/2020 came to be registered at Ponda Police Station. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner alongwith accused no.2 were proceeding from Bethki Khandola road to Shantadurga road Marcel on her scooter bearing No.GA-07-AA-2311 had a fall and one of the witness Mr. Krishnanand Gaonkar came to assist them. It is alleged by the prosecution that at that time the petitioner abused the said witness. 6. It is case of the prosecution that when the complainant was writing Memo at Police Outpost Marcel to send them for medical examination, both the accused with their common intention abused the complainant and accused no.2 snatched the memo from his hand and tear the same and assaulted the complaint causing him simple injury on his neck and forearm while he was discharging his duty as a public servant and that process damaged plastic chair of the said police station. 7. The petitioner was arrested on 24.1.2020 and released on bail by JMFC, Ponda. The petitioner subsequently learnt about filing of final report/chargesheet from the Diocesan Society of Education who has filed affidavit in reply before the Hon'ble High Court in LD-VC-CW-68-2020. Vide said LD-VC-CW-69-2020 challenged the order of termination dated 21.5.2010 passed by the said Diocesan Society whereby the services of the petitioner as a teacher of Santa Cruz Primary School was terminated. The said termination has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. 8. Vide said LD-VC-CW-69-2020 challenged the order of termination dated 21.5.2010 passed by the said Diocesan Society whereby the services of the petitioner as a teacher of Santa Cruz Primary School was terminated. The said termination has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC online SC 2447; Jai Bhagwan and others Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 102 and Umesh Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591 . 9. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Paragraph 18 thus:- “There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that act of assault for tearing of memo is clearly attributable to the accused no.2 Ashwini and not to the petitioner. There cannot be any common intention as such in that. The learned counsel also pointed out that to attract section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act there ought to be alcohol exceeding 30mg/100ml alcohol whereas a report shows that there is 30mg/100ml alcohol. In view there of there is no offence made out under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. The statements in verbatim are same. The prosecution have not made out any prima facie case also to attract Section 353 i.e. assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties against the petitioner. In view there of there is no offence made out under Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. The statements in verbatim are same. The prosecution have not made out any prima facie case also to attract Section 353 i.e. assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties against the petitioner. So also to attract section 504 there has to be intentional insult with intend to provoke the breach of the peace or to commit any other offence. There is no such provocation at the instance of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner will require to undergo unnecessary trial. The learned counsel also submitted that section 34 cannot be applied to the petitioner as the petitioner though was present at the time of incident, there are no allegations against the petitioner about the assault or deterring to public officer. Therefore, there is no question of any common intention. Section 34 cannot be invoked in every case. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Jai Bhagwan and others(supra). 11. The learned APP Shri P. Faldessai, submitted that charges are yet to be framed. She will get her opportunity of hearing. Moreover the petitioner appears to be a teacher and on the day of the incident was driving scooter under the influence of liquor. As to whether as 30mg/100 ml alcohol would be the percentage exceeding the percentage of alcohol prescribed will be the question to be decided in trial. From the statements it appears that both of them were abusing and shouting at the police station. They caused damage to the property of police station and one of them also assaulted police officer. Thus prima facie there is no case made out to quash the FIR. 12. I have gone through the contentions of the parties. Though it is correct that at early stage FIR can be quashed and set aside but there has to exist such circumstances that proceeding with the trial will be abuse of process of law. There is no dispute about powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. But facts involved are such that prima facie in my considered opinion there is no case for quashing FIR. In present matter it is not the case that there is no material against the petitioner at all. There is no dispute about powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. But facts involved are such that prima facie in my considered opinion there is no case for quashing FIR. In present matter it is not the case that there is no material against the petitioner at all. The petitioner is having an opportunity to demonstrate that whatever material on record is not sufficient to make out any prima facie case to proceed with the trial. She can demonstrate before the trial Court that there is no case made out to frame even a charge. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the petition and is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 14. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.