KALAIMANI M vs CCB Tambaram — 47/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCG060002012026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

07-01-2026

Filing Number

201/2026

Filing Date

07-01-2026

Registration No

47/2026

Registration Date

07-01-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet

Judge

9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

FIR Details

Police Station

CCB, TAMBARAM

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503

Petitioner(s)

KALAIMANI M

Adv. DINESHKUMAR J

Respondent(s)

CCB Tambaram

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

18-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Orders

12-03-2026

Issue of Service

07-03-2026

Issue of Service

05-03-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Copy of Order

Case 47/2026 - KALAIMANI M v. CCB Tambaram The court dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking return of Rs. 17,32,496/- allegedly lost to online fraud. Although police had frozen the suspect's bank account containing the claimed amount, the court found the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not conduct a money trail analysis or provide complete bank statements proving the frozen account's contents corresponded specifically to the petitioner's transfers. The court reasoned that cyber fraud accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims, and releasing funds without tracing individual transactions could prejudice other victims' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 47/2026 - KALAIMANI M v. CCB Tambaram The court dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking return of Rs. 17,32,496/- allegedly lost to online fraud. Although police had frozen the suspect's bank account containing the claimed amount, the court found the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not conduct a money trail analysis or provide complete bank statements proving the frozen account's contents corresponded specifically to the petitioner's transfers. The court reasoned that cyber fraud accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims, and releasing funds without tracing individual transactions could prejudice other victims' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case