DCB Villupuram P.S. vs Ananthasegar — 742/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 409. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 29th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP340021062024
Next Hearing
29th June 2026
Filing Number
1874/2024
Filing Date
24-09-2024
Registration No
742/2024
Registration Date
24-09-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
FIR Details
FIR Number
31
Police Station
DCB, Villupuram
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DCB Villupuram P.S.
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Ananthasegar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) recorded on September 10, 2025, in criminal case CC No. 742/2024 before the District Court, Tiruvannamalai. The witness, Amuthadevi (Panchayat President of Othiyattur village), testified that respondent Ananthasegar allegedly overcharged the panchayat by approximately ₹10,000 for a well-boring machine—claiming ₹72,000 when the actual cost was ₹62,450. The witness indicated this fraudulent practice occurred across 21 panchayats. The respondent did not appear; cross-examination was not conducted. The case remains under investigation by police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) recorded on September 10, 2025, in criminal case CC No. 742/2024 before the District Court, Tiruvannamalai. The witness, Amuthadevi (Panchayat President of Othiyattur village), testified that respondent Ananthasegar allegedly overcharged the panchayat by approximately ₹10,000 for a well-boring machine—claiming ₹72,000 when the actual cost was ₹62,450. The witness indicated this fraudulent practice occurred across 21 panchayats. The respondent did not appear; cross-examination was not conducted. The case remains under investigation by police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts