The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the concept of 'same transaction' under the Criminal Procedure Code to determine the connection between multiple alleged offences and the jurisdiction of the trial court.

1. The petitioner is the first accused in case pending trial in S.C.No.387 of 2005 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

2. A final report was filed in P.R.C.No.387 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, alleging offences under sections 376(1), 384, 385, 363, 354, 342, 343, 352, 448, 417, 420, 294(b), 427, 452, 406, 392, 506(i)(ii), 509 r/w 34 and 109 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner/A1 was running one Sri Ramanuja Mission Trust and delivering upanyas and lectures for Vaishnavites. The de facto complainant/ LW-1, his wife Geetha @ Sivagama Sundari, daughters Priyamvatha @ Mathuvanthi and Manasa called at the trust of the petitioner to hear his lectures and obtain his blessings during the month of October 2002. Using the devotion to God and the Vaishnavite religion of the LW-1 family, the petitioner/A1 caused them to believe that he was the incarnation ofLord Perumal and using the assistance of A2 to A7 caused them untold hardships. The gist of the accusations is as follows:

3. Pursuant to cognizance taken by learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.387 of 2005, the petitioner moved Crl.M.P.No.1859 of 2006 seeking delinking of the various charges towards enabling separate trials thereof by appropriate Courts. Such petition stands dismissed under orders dated 31.12.2009 giving rise to the present revision.

4. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through Sections 218, 219, 220, 221 and 223 Cr.P.C. towards informing that none of the said provisions stand attracted and therefore, the various offences alleged separately would have to be tried. Learned senior counsel also referred to section 177 Cr.P.C. which provides for trial of cases before Courts within whose jurisdiction offence was commited. While Section 218 Cr.P.C provides for separate charge for distinct offence, 219 Cr.P.C provides that three offences of the same kind within a year may be charged together.

6. It is submitted that the Mahila Court had no jurisdiction in respect of offences covered under items 7, 11, 12 and 13 and excepting offences covered under items 2, 3, 6 and 8 all others were offences triable by a Judicial Magistrate. In respect of offences falling under items 1, 4, 14, 16, 21, 22 and 23, it is submitted that the same related to offences wherein women were not victims and therefore, the Special Court dealing with women's cases could not try the same. The further submissions are to the effect that no charge under Sections 34 IPC – common intention, 149 IPC – common object, 120–B IPC – criminal conspiracy had been made, though the accused were seven in number. Though some of the offences were alleged to have taken place in states other than Tamil Nadu, a common charge sheet stands filed. It is the submission of learned senior counsel that on a case tried by a Judicial Magistrate, the accused would have a right of appeal before the Sessions Judge. By putting up cases triable by Judicial Magistrate before the Sessions Judge, such opportunity was being denied to the accused. It further is submitted that extreme prejudice against the accused would be occasioned in the mind of the trial Judge by wrongful mulcting of several charges in one and the same case. Informing that the first nine pages of the order of the trial Court were merely extracts of the petition and counter and that up to page No.15 only the legal provisions relied upon had been cited, it is submitted that the following was the only reasoning accorded by the trial Court:

"In the instant case, series of acts are alleged to have been committed by the accused as to form same transaction by keeping L.W.1, L.W.2, L.W.3 and L.W.4 in his vicious grip and custody and thereby joint trial as contemplated u/s.220 Cr.P.C. is held proper. Fur