CCIW CID Thiruvarur vs Dhinakaran — 60/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 407,408,468,420. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTV020008582025
Filing Number
831/2025
Filing Date
01-Jun-2018
Registration No
60/2025
Registration Date
01-Jun-2018
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvarur
Judge
2-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
3
Police Station
CCIWCID TIRUVARUR
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CCIW CID (Criminal Investigation Department) Thiruvarur
Adv. APP Gr.II
Respondent(s)
-
1.Dhinakaran
Case History
-
17-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
24-Jun-2026
DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: C.C. No. 60/2025 Outcome: The court found the respondent Dhinakaran guilty of embezzling ₹64,64,531 from cooperative society funds through fraudulent accounting entries and falsified records. The case involved investigation into financial irregularities in a cooperative society's accounts, including fabricated attendance vouchers, false cash book entries, and unauthorized fund disbursements. Evidence from witness testimonies established that two society members (P. Sathyamurthy and S. Marvizhi) did not attend a July 2025 executive meeting but were falsely recorded as receiving ₹100 each attendance fees—totaling ₹200 in misappropriated funds. The respondent, as accounting officer, failed to maintain proper financial registers and permitted unauthorized ledger entries, ultimately resulting in substantial fund misappropriation across 17 transaction items. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Jun-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Jun-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
10-Jun-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
26-May-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
26-May-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-May-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
29-Apr-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Apr-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
26-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
26-Mar-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
-
04-Mar-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Feb-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
18-Dec-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Nov-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Oct-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Oct-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Sep-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
17-Sep-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Sep-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
03-Sep-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
07-Aug-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Jul-2025
Evidence
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Jun-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
06-Jun-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-May-2025
Issue of Service
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
29-Apr-2025
Appearance
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Jun-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2025
Case Summary: C.C. No. 60/2025 Outcome: The court found the respondent Dhinakaran guilty of embezzling ₹64,64,531 from cooperative society funds through fraudulent accounting entries and falsified records. The case involved investigation into financial irregularities in a cooperative society's accounts, including fabricated attendance vouchers, false cash book entries, and unauthorized fund disbursements. Evidence from witness testimonies established that two society members (P. Sathyamurthy and S. Marvizhi) did not attend a July 2025 executive meeting but were falsely recorded as receiving ₹100 each attendance fees—totaling ₹200 in misappropriated funds. The respondent, as accounting officer, failed to maintain proper financial registers and permitted unauthorized ledger entries, ultimately resulting in substantial fund misappropriation across 17 transaction items. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts