Judgment Heard Mr. Rajkarne, learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs. Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of both the parties. 3. Applicant no.1 is the mother of applicant no.2. An F.I.R. was registered against them at Ranapratap Nagar, Police Station, Nagpur Vide F.I.R. No.157/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the applicants under the guise of running a 'clinic for naturopathy' had been indulging in offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Act. Therefore, the Police Inspector Mr. Kudre of Ranapratap Nagar Police Station had decided to raid the place along with panchas. The place was raided at about 4.00 O' clock on 24th June, 2010 in presence of panchas, female officers and police constables. A decoy customer was used to verify whether it was really a place of naturopathy. During the course of raid, about four female members allegedly indulging in obscene activities were also found and few male members were also found in the premises. It is alleged that instead of naturopathy, some obscene activities were in progress when the police had visited the spot and the police noted this fact in the F.I.R. It is also alleged that the police officers were assaulted by applicant no.2 in furtherance of common intention of both the applicants. Panchanama was drawn and further investigation was carried out. During the course of further investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. 4. The grievance of the applicants is that they had never indulged in such activities as alleged by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and they were genuinely running naturopathy clinic and a false case has been filed by respondent no.3 -Mr. S.S. Kudre, Police Inspector then attached to Crime Branch, Nagpur. 5. During pendency of the present petition, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants by Police Inspector, Social Service Branch, Criminal Branch, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Act and Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The applicants have been allowed to amend the application. The prayer clause has been amended. The applicants want to quash the charge-sheet against them. 7. 6. The applicants have been allowed to amend the application. The prayer clause has been amended. The applicants want to quash the charge-sheet against them. 7. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rajkarne on behalf of the applicants and Mrs. Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5. Respondent no.4 is the landlord of the place where the raid was conducted. Notice was not issued to respondent no.4 by this Court (Coram A.H. Joshi, J.), otherwise also respondent no.4 is not necessary party to the proceedings. 8. Mr. Rajkarne has submitted that after the alleged raid on the part of respondent no.3, the complainant by his subordinates, the applicants had made various complaints to the police authorities and the Government. The applicants had ventilated their grievances through the complaints and had prayed for justice. It is the case of the applicants that no activities as alleged were in progress in the premises. The applicants wanted action against respondent no.3 -Mr. Kudre. Mr. Rajkarne has submitted on the prayer of the applicants that the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, has directed an inquiry to be conducted. Detail inquiry has been conducted and statements of various persons have been recorded during the inquiry. Mr. Rajkarne has further submitted that Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the raid was not proper and not in accordance with law. It is also submitted that on receipt of said report, the Commissioner of Police had reprimanded respondent no.3 and had directed him to discharge his duties in accordance with law. 9. The contention of Mr. Rajkarne, therefore, is that since the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police has been accepted by the Commissioner of Police, the applicants cannot be made to face the prosecution. 10. Ms. Jachak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is prima facie case to frame charge against both the applicants, this Court may not entertain the revision application in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted by Mrs. Jachak that it is possible that the applicants may get acquittal from the trial and that may not be consideration of this Court at this stage. It is submitted by Mrs. Jachak that it is possible that the applicants may get acquittal from the trial and that may not be consideration of this Court at this stage. The consideration under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Court shall to see whether the continuation of proceedings alleged to gross abuse of process of law and as to whether it is necessary to quash the proceeding to secure the ends of justice. 11. In the present case, prima facie, it appears that raid was conducted and some female members were found in the premises allegedly in semi-nude condition. It is alleged that even applicant no.2 was not properly dressed. It is alleged that in the name of massage, some obscene activity is in progress. As far as the report of ACP submitted to the Commissioner of Police is concerned, he has never concluded that no activities as alleged were in progress and that a false case had been created by respondent no.3 -Mr. Kudre against the applicants. As stated in the report is that the raid was not conducted in accordance with law and it was a hasty step on the part of respondent no.3. The Inquiry Officer was of the view that respondent no.3 could have been little more careful and could have taken more precaution before entering into premises. In my view, the report does not help the applicants in any manner. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material on record, I do not find any scope for interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application needs to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.