KALAIMANI M vs CCB Tambaram — 383/2026
Case under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 497. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG060009612026
e-Filing Number
20-02-2026
Filing Number
957/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
383/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
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 Summary: Kalaimani M v. CCB Tambaram (Crl.M.P. 383/2026) Kalaimani sought return of Rs. 3,19,217.50 allegedly lost in an online fraud scheme totaling Rs. 57,59,088, claiming police had frozen the fraudster's accounts. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the amount because the investigating officer had not conducted a proper money trail analysis, examined account holders, or provided complete bank statements. The court reasoned that frozen accounts often contain deposits from multiple victims, and without transaction-level verification, releasing funds could prejudice other victims' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Kalaimani M v. CCB Tambaram (Crl.M.P. 383/2026) Kalaimani sought return of Rs. 3,19,217.50 allegedly lost in an online fraud scheme totaling Rs. 57,59,088, claiming police had frozen the fraudster's accounts. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the amount because the investigating officer had not conducted a proper money trail analysis, examined account holders, or provided complete bank statements. The court reasoned that frozen accounts often contain deposits from multiple victims, and without transaction-level verification, releasing funds 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