Ellangovan vs CCB Tambaram — 341/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG060009122026
e-Filing Number
27-01-2026
Filing Number
908/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
341/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
9
Police Station
CCB, TAMBARAM
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ellangovan
Adv. A M MEERAAN ABDUL AJEES
Respondent(s)
CCB Tambaram
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 24-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 23-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 16-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Ellangovan v. CCB Tambaram (341/2026) The Judicial Magistrate dismissed Ellangovan's petition seeking return of Rs. 21,06,616 allegedly lost to online fraud. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not conduct proper money trail analysis, examine account holders, or provide complete bank statements. Since fraudulent accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims, the court found that releasing funds without identifying the specific amount traceable to the petitioner could adversely affect other victims' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Ellangovan v. CCB Tambaram (341/2026) The Judicial Magistrate dismissed Ellangovan's petition seeking return of Rs. 21,06,616 allegedly lost to online fraud. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not conduct proper money trail analysis, examine account holders, or provide complete bank statements. Since fraudulent accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims, the court found that releasing funds without identifying the specific amount traceable to the petitioner could adversely affect 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