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
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
Petitioner(s)
KALAIMANI M
Adv. DINESHKUMAR J
Respondent(s)
CCB Tambaram
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Orders
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts