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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Ellangovan

Adv. A M MEERAAN ABDUL AJEES

Respondent(s)

CCB Tambaram

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

09-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Enquiry

24-03-2026

Enquiry

23-03-2026

Enquiry

16-03-2026

Enquiry

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case