Madras High Court
Mohanasabarinath @ Sabari vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 19 January, 2026
Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22772 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.19700 of 2025
Mohanasabarinath @ Sabari .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Authoor Sub Division,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Authoor Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.110/2022
3. Suresh
4. Udhayamoorthi @ Moorthi
5. Karthick ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to withdraw the SC No.25/2022 on the file of Special
Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm )
Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
District and consequently transfer the same to be tried
simultaneously with case in SC No.388/2025 before the Learned
Principal District Court, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Preface:
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary and exceptional. The power to transfer a criminal case is intended to secure the ends of justice, and not to afford a litigant a perceived tactical advantage or to facilitate a roving consolidation of trials on the mere assertion of overlap.
2. It is equally settled that transfer cannot be ordered on bald apprehensions, conjectures, or on a generalized plea of “conflicting judgments”. The petitioner must demonstrate circumstances of a real and reasonable nature, indicating that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, or that some question of law of unusual difficulty is 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 likely to arise, or that the transfer is otherwise expedient for the ends of justice.
3. The present petition, though couched as a transfer request, essentially rests on the premise that the “motive” in one case is said to be linked with the “motive” in another. The question is whether such linkage, in the facts pleaded, satisfies the threshold for interference under Section 407 Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in S.C.No.25 of 2022, pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi District.
5. The case in S.C.No.25 of 2022 arises out of Crime No.110 of 2022, registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. The prosecution allegation, in substance, is that on 29.05.2022 at about 5.30 p.m., Accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked one 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 Shanmugaraj, a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, with deadly weapons, causing his death, and that the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased, namely Suresh. The petitioner further states that an earlier murder case relating to the death of one Sathyamoorthi on 29.05.2020 was registered as Crime No.163 of 2020 on the file of Arumuganeri Police Station for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and that the final report therein is pending trial as S.C.No.388 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai District.
7. The petitioner contends that since the motive projected in S.C.No.25 of 2022 is allegedly rooted in the earlier incident, both cases should be tried by the same Presiding Officer, failing which there is a likelihood of conflicting judgments. The petitioner also seeks stay of both trials pending disposal of this petition.
Case of the prosecution:
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
8. In so far as S.C.No.25 of 2022 is concerned, the prosecution case is founded upon a specific occurrence on 29.05.2022, involving a distinct victim (Shanmugaraj), specific overt acts attributed to the accused, specific weapons, and a set of witnesses who speak to the occurrence, its immediate aftermath, and the surrounding circumstances.
9. The alleged motive of retaliation, as projected by the prosecution, is only one component of the case. The core adjudicatory exercise in a murder trial remains the proof of the occurrence, identity of assailants, participation, intention, and the evidentiary worth of ocular and/or circumstantial materials placed by the prosecution.
10. In so far as S.C.No.388 of 2025 is concerned, it pertains to a different occurrence on 29.05.2020, different victim (Sathyamoorthi), different crime number, and different accused constellation. The trial in that case would turn on its own evidence and circumstances.
Grounds urged for transfer:
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
11. The grounds urged by the petitioner, in essence, are:
i. that the motive in both cases is interlinked; ii. that witnesses in both cases may overlap; iii. that if tried separately, conflicting judgments may arise; and iv. that Section 407(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is attracted since questions of unusual difficulty may arise.
12. The petitioner does not plead, nor place any material, to show that the learned Special Court at Thoothukudi is biased, that it lacks jurisdiction, or that any hostility, intimidation, or atmosphere of prejudice prevails so as to render a fair trial impossible. The plea is thus not grounded on clause (a) of Section 407(1) (fair and impartial trial), but substantially on a perceived expediency arising from alleged linkage.
Submissions:
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the motive of the case in S.C.No.25 of 2022 is directly traceable to the earlier homicide case, and that appreciation of the retaliatory 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 background should be done by the same Court to avoid inconsistent conclusions.
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer, would submit that two independent homicidal incidents separated by time cannot be clubbed merely because a retaliatory motive is alleged, and that transfer cannot be sought as a matter of convenience. It is also submitted that offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act are triable by a designated Special Court, and the petitioner has not demonstrated any compelling reason to withdraw the case from that Court.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record.
Point for consideration:
16. The point arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out a case under Section 407 Cr.P.C., 1973, to withdraw S.C.No.25 of 2022 from the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi District, and to transfer it to the Principal District 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 Court, Madurai District, to be tried simultaneously with S.C.No.388 of 2025?
Analysis:
17. The power under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with circumspection. A transfer order inevitably reflects upon the confidence reposed in the subordinate Court, and therefore, the High Court must be satisfied that compelling circumstances exist.
18. At the outset, this Court notes that the petitioner’s principal premise is that the motive in the murder case of 2022 is linked to the murder case of 2020. Even assuming such linkage exists as a prosecutorial narrative, that by itself does not mandate that both cases be tried by the same Court.
19. “Motive” is not an element that determines jurisdiction or forum. It is an evidentiary circumstance, relevant to explain why an offence may have been committed. A motive may have roots in a prior incident, but the adjudication of the later offence remains anchored to its own occurrence evidence.
8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
20. The apprehension of “conflicting judgments” is, in the present context, overstated. Each trial culminates in findings on the occurrence in that case, based on the evidence adduced therein. The fact that two judgments may narrate background rivalry differently does not, by itself, constitute a legally cognizable conflict warranting transfer.
21. The petitioner also claims that witnesses in both cases must be examined “simultaneously”. This Court is unable to accept the said submission in the abstract. The petitioner has not provided any concrete particulars identifying specific witnesses common to both trials, the nature of their testimony, and how separate trials would render their evidence irreconcilable or prejudicial.
22. More importantly, the Code provides adequate safeguards to handle overlap in evidence. If a witness is common, his testimony will be recorded in each case and will be tested by cross-examination in that case. If contradictions arise, the law of evidence provides mechanisms to confront and assess them. Such an eventuality is not an “unusual difficulty” within the meaning of Section 407(1)(b) 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 Cr.P.C., but a routine forensic circumstance in criminal adjudication.
23. The reliance on Section 407(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is misconceived. The expression “some question of law of unusual difficulty” is not attracted merely because two cases share a narrative thread of retaliation or community rivalry. The petitioner has not pointed out any specific legal issue of uncommon complexity that would arise if the Special Court proceeds with S.C.No.25 of 2022.
24. This Court must also keep in view the statutory scheme relating to the SC/ST (POA) Act. The legislature has provided for Special Courts to try offences under the Act with promptitude and sensitivity. Withdrawal of such cases from the Special Court and their transfer to another Court cannot be undertaken lightly, especially when no allegation of unfairness or incapacity is made against the Special Court.
25. The petition also seeks stay of both trials. Granting such a prayer on the present pleadings would impede the expeditious 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 disposal of serious offences including a charge of murder. The High Court, while exercising transfer jurisdiction, cannot permit the process to be used to stall trials, unless the case for transfer is clearly made out.
26. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the petitioner has not established any circumstance demonstrating that transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. The grounds urged are largely based on convenience and apprehension without tangible basis.
27. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that no case is made out under Section 407 Cr.P.C. to withdraw and transfer S.C.No.25 of 2022 from the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi District, to the Principal District Court, Madurai District.
28. Transfer jurisdiction is meant to preserve the integrity of the trial process, not to restructure the forum merely because two criminal cases share a background narrative. Courts decide cases on 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm ) Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025 evidence, and the criminal process contains sufficient safeguards to deal with overlap, contradiction, and competing versions. The petitioner has not crossed the high threshold required for a transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C.
29. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30. It is clarified that the dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from raising all permissible defences before the trial Court, and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, which are confined only to the disposal of the transfer request.
19.01.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm )
Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
To
1.The Judge,
Special Court for Trial of
Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Judge,
Principal District Court,
Madurai District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Authoor Sub Division,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Authoor Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm )
Crl.OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.22772 of 2025
19.01.2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 12:27:40 pm )