JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceeding in connection with AC 601 of 2017 under Sections 384/406/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Alipore.

2. Before describing the issue involved in the instant revision this Court finds it necessary to state the following facts:-

3. Sometimes in the year 2008 the opposite party came in touch with the petitioner through a social network site. They were in contact in virtual mode for about one year. For the first time the petitioner and the opposite party met during Durgapuja at Kolkata when the petitioner proposed the opposite party about his interest in her. During 2011 the opposite party who was working in a renowned company in Bangalore got an opportunity to visit Budapest for his official work. When the petitioner came to know about the said job opportunity she expressed her desire to buy a flat and asked the opposite party to invest money. The opposite party transferred a sum of Rs.8.8 lakhs through online bank transfer in the bank account of the petitioner maintained with State Bank of India, Sealdah Branch. On 20th December, 2014, the opposite party returned Kolkata after completing his official assignment. Sometimes in January, 2015 the opposite party came to learn that the petitioner had already married to one Dr. Subhadip Sarkar. On 4th March, 2017 the opposite party filed a complaint before the learned ACJM being case No.AC 601 of 2017 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 384/406/420/506/120B of the IPC against the petitioner herein and her husband Dr. Subhadip Sarkar. The learned ACJM took cognizance of offence and transferred the case to the 2nd Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.

4. The opposite party filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C and on the basis of such affidavit the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner.

5. It is alleged by the petitioner that her father is a retired employee of State Bank of India and her mother was an employee of West Bengal Health Service. The father-in-law of the petitioner was a retired Assistant Commissioner of Railway Protection Force and her husband is a doctor by profession. Thus, the petitioner and her family hold considerable status, prestige and dignity in the society in the context of their educational and social background. It is admitted by the petitioner that she came to know the opposite party through social networking site in the year 2009-2010. The opposite party came to Kolkata from Bangalore and proposed the petitioner to marry. Initially the family members of the petitioner were attracted with the appearance of the opposite party but the opposite party started to enquire about the salaries of the parents of the petitioners, number of flats her father possessed etc. He also disclosed that he did not have good terms with his parents. During the period between January 2012 and December, 2014 the opposite party used to send money in the bank account of the petitioner voluntarily stating that the said money was sent for the personal use of the petitioner. In 2013 the father of the petitioner met with cerebro-vascular accident. In December, 2014 the petitioner’s father asked the opposite party about the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. But the opposite party blatantly denied to marry the petitioner unless the petitioner’s father gave him a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and a flat as a dowry. The father of the petitioner flatly refused such proposal of the opposite party. The petitioner also refused to entertain such proposal. She also came to know that the opposite party was involved with another lady. Since then the petitioner did not maintain any relation with the opposite party. She also asked him not to send any money to his accou