Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Doctor; Holds Orchidectomy Medically Appropriate and No Evidence of Consent Manipulation

Case Name: Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 319
Date of Judgment/Order: 06 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra

Held: The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings against a medical professional cannot be sustained where the medical procedure adopted is medically appropriate and supported by expert opinion, and there is no material evidence of manipulation or forgery in the consent form; continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary: The case arose from allegations that the appellant-doctor performed an Orchidectomy (removal of testicle) on a minor patient without consent, whereas consent had allegedly been given only for Orchidopexy. The complainant alleged that the consent form had been manipulated to include Orchidectomy. The FIR led to charges under various IPC provisions including forgery and negligence. During investigation, a Medical Board was constituted, which opined that Orchidectomy was an appropriate surgical procedure in cases of undescended testis, particularly where the testis is small, dysplastic, or at risk of malignancy. The Board further stated that such procedure should ideally be done with consent. The Court examined the consent form, expert opinions, and additional reports, and found that the consent form already contained both procedures as alternatives, with no evidence of interpolation by different ink or handwriting. It also noted that the Director of Medical Services found no irregularity in the consent. The Court reiterated that while issues of fact are generally left to trial, the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. It emphasized the higher threshold for criminal liability of medical professionals and absence of any allegation of malice or negligence in the present case.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order refusing to quash proceedings, and quashed C.C. No. 13 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, holding that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, with no order as to costs.