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

Case disposed

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

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 420
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 Section 66D

Petitioner(s)

M Subramanian

Adv. M V Saranya

Respondent(s)

CCB Tambaram

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

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

09-04-2026
Copy of Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case