M Subramanian vs CCB Tambaram — 521/2026
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG060015072026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
1483/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
521/2026
Registration Date
04-03-2026
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
69
Police Station
CCW TAMBARAM CITY
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M Subramanian
Adv. M V Saranya
Respondent(s)
CCB Tambaram
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 24-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 18-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 16-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: M Subramanian v. Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Division-1 (Crl.M.P. 521/2026) The court dismissed M. Subramanian's petition seeking return of Rs. 28,69,962 lost in an online fraud. Though police froze the suspected fraudster's account, the court ruled the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not submit complete bank statements, transaction analysis, or money trail evidence. The court noted that frozen accounts in cyber fraud typically contain deposits from multiple victims, and without identifying the petitioner's specific amount, releasing funds could prejudice other victims' rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: M Subramanian v. Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Division-1 (Crl.M.P. 521/2026) The court dismissed M. Subramanian's petition seeking return of Rs. 28,69,962 lost in an online fraud. Though police froze the suspected fraudster's account, the court ruled the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement because the investigating officer did not submit complete bank statements, transaction analysis, or money trail evidence. The court noted that frozen accounts in cyber fraud typically contain deposits from multiple victims, and without identifying the petitioner's specific amount, 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