Suram Ajaysmith vs CCB Tambaram — 604/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCG060015662026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

28-02-2026

Filing Number

1542/2026

Filing Date

05-03-2026

Registration No

604/2026

Registration Date

05-03-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet

Judge

9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

FIR Details

Police Station

CCB, TAMBARAM

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Suram Ajaysmith

Adv. NAJIMUDEEN S

Respondent(s)

CCB Tambaram

Hearing History

Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu

09-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Issue of Service

25-03-2026

Issue of Service

24-03-2026

Issue of Service

16-03-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Order

Case 604/2026 Summary: Suram Ajaysmith sought return of Rs. 3,70,623 frozen in a bank account during investigation of an online fraud case where he lost Rs. 10,07,000. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the specific amount claimed. The court found the investigating officer did not follow Supreme Court guidelines by failing to conduct money trail analysis, examine account holders, or provide complete bank statements proving the frozen funds corresponded specifically to the petitioner's transfer, as fraudster accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 604/2026 Summary: Suram Ajaysmith sought return of Rs. 3,70,623 frozen in a bank account during investigation of an online fraud case where he lost Rs. 10,07,000. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie entitlement to the specific amount claimed. The court found the investigating officer did not follow Supreme Court guidelines by failing to conduct money trail analysis, examine account holders, or provide complete bank statements proving the frozen funds corresponded specifically to the petitioner's transfer, as fraudster accounts typically receive deposits from multiple victims. 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