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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 497
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

KALAIMANI M

Adv. DINESHKUMAR J

Respondent(s)

CCB Tambaram

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

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

18-03-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case