DR. S. BALAGOPAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 06-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 381 : 2026 INSC 319
Dr. S. Balagopal 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1753 of 2026)
06 April 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in not quashing 
the proceedings against the appellant surgeon who performed 
Orchidectomy-removal of testicle on the one and a half year boy, 
without obtaining the consent by the father-de facto complainant, 
as alleged.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
Appellant-surgeon performed Orchidopexy-surgical procedure, 
on a one and a half year boy, for which doctors had obtained 
consent – Appellant also performed Orchidectomy-removal 
of testicle on the boy – Allegations by the father-de facto 
complainant that no consent was given for Orchidectomy – 
FIR registered u/ss.312, 325, 426, 120-B, 406, 465, 468, 471 
and s.501 (1) & (2) IPC against the doctor – Charge-sheet 
submitted and the Magistrate took cognizance – Petitions filed 
u/s.482 Cr.P.C., by the complainant to constitute a Medical 
Board of three members so that a fair opinion is obtained – 
Pursuant to the directions, the Medical Board constituted 
which submitted its report – Petition also filed by the appellant 
seeking quashing of the proceedings – High Court rejected 
the same – Correctness:
Held: In the opinion of the Medical Board the procedure 
adopted was appropriate – Moreover, the operating surgeon 
is the best judge of which one of the two procedures is to be 
adopted – As regards any interpolation in the consent form to 
add the alternative procedure-Orchidectomy, being a question 
of fact is to be determined in a trial based on evidence led 
therein and, thus, courts must be loath to examine such issues 
* Author
382
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in a summary proceeding, like the one u/s.482  – However, no 
absolute bar on High Court’s power to consider questions of 
fact in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.482, particularly when such 
consideration necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of 
the court or to secure the ends of justice – No malice attributed 
to the doctor and no dispute that the consent form was executed 
for undertaking medical procedure – Medical opinion is to the 
effect that the procedure adopted by the doctor was one of the 
alternatives recognized to meet such medical exigency – No doubt, 
Medical Board’s opinion indicates that such procedure should be 
carried out after obtaining consent, but nothing to indicate that 
the consent form already obtained was not in order or that no 
consent was obtained – Perusal of the consent letter indicates 
that in the column where the nature of proposed surgery is to be 
mentioned, both types of surgery-Orchidopexy and Orchidectomy 
are mentioned by putting a slash, which means that the other 
surgery, namely, Orchidectomy, was one of the options available – 
No material on record that alternative surgery, Orchidectomy, 
was entered by a different ink or in a different handwriting, and 
having regard to the Medical Board’s opinion that in such medical 
situations, Orchidectomy is a normal alternative, continuance of 
criminal proceeding against the appellant abuse of the process 
of the court and, thus, to secure the ends of justice, the same is 
quashed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set 
aside. [Paras 17-21]
Case Law Cited
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 307 : (2005) 
6 SCC 1 – held inapplicable.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Quashing the proceedings; Surgeon; Orchidectomy-removal of 
testicle; Without obtaining consent by the father; Surgeon performed 
Orchidopexy-surgical procedure that moves an undescended 
testicle into the scrotum; Doctor obtained consent; Constitute 
Medical Board; Fair opinion; Medical Board report.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 
383
Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1753 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 23349 of 2016.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
K. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., T. R. B. Sivakumar, 
Deva Vrat Anand.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
V Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., D.kumanan, Ms. Deepa S, Sheikh F 
Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Ms. Azka Sheikh 
Kalia.
Respondent-in-person.
J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.