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
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
Petitioner(s)
Suram Ajaysmith
Adv. NAJIMUDEEN S
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 |
| 25-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 24-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 16-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts