USHA VENKATARAMAN vs CCB Tambaram — 210/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG060007212026
e-Filing Number
04-02-2026
Filing Number
717/2026
Filing Date
07-02-2026
Registration No
210/2026
Registration Date
07-02-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
00
Police Station
CCB, TAMBARAM
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
USHA VENKATARAMAN
Adv. ANBARASU K
Respondent(s)
CCB Tambaram
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 06-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 24-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 16-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Usha Venkataraman v. CCB Tambaram (Crl.M.P. No.210/2026) Decision: The court dismissed Usha Venkataraman's petition seeking return of Rs.8,46,084/- from a frozen bank account used in an online fraud scheme where she lost Rs.30,00,000/-. Key Reasoning: The court held that in cyber fraud cases, frozen accounts typically contain commingled funds from multiple victims. Without a complete money trail analysis and bank transaction records proving the petitioner's specific amount is identifiable in the frozen account, directing release could prejudice other victims' rights. The petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the claimed amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Usha Venkataraman v. CCB Tambaram (Crl.M.P. No.210/2026) Decision: The court dismissed Usha Venkataraman's petition seeking return of Rs.8,46,084/- from a frozen bank account used in an online fraud scheme where she lost Rs.30,00,000/-. Key Reasoning: The court held that in cyber fraud cases, frozen accounts typically contain commingled funds from multiple victims. Without a complete money trail analysis and bank transaction records proving the petitioner's specific amount is identifiable in the frozen account, directing release could prejudice other victims' rights. The petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the claimed amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts