The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Dr. S. Balagopal, a pediatric surgeon, held that continuation of prosecution in the absence of evidence of negligence or document tampering would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha, which set aside the Madras High Court’s order refusing to quash the proceedings. The Court held that allowing the trial to continue in the facts of the case would result in unnecessary harassment of the doctor.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the father of a 1.5-year-old child who had undergone surgery for an undescended testicle. The complainant alleged that while consent had been given for orchidopexy (a procedure to reposition the testicle), the surgeon performed orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) without obtaining specific consent. It was further alleged that the consent form was later manipulated by inserting the term “orchidectomy,” thereby constituting forgery and criminal misconduct.
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under multiple provisions of the IPC, including charges relating to forgery, criminal conspiracy, and causing harm. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter remained pending before the trial court for several years. The accused doctor challenged the proceedings, but the High Court declined to interfere, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
During the course of proceedings, a Medical Board was constituted to examine the medical aspects of the case. The Board concluded that the removed testicle was small, cystic, and dysplastic, and that such a condition often warrants removal due to the risk of malignancy. It opined that orchidectomy was a medically appropriate and accepted procedure in such circumstances, although it emphasized that such procedures should ideally be carried out after obtaining informed consent from the parents.
Importantly, the Medical Board did not find any negligence in the conduct of the surgeon. The Supreme Court noted that the dispute in the case was not about medical negligence but about the validity and scope of consent. The Court examined the consent form and observed that it mentioned both procedures—orchidopexy and orchidectomy—as alternatives, separated by a slash.
The Court further noted that there was no forensic evidence to establish that the consent form had been tampered with or that the term “orchidectomy” was inserted later using a different ink or handwriting. Additionally, the opinion obtained from medical authorities did not find any irregularity in the consent form.
Referring to the principles laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that criminal prosecution of medical professionals requires a high threshold. However, it clarified that since the present case did not involve negligence, the focus was on whether the continuation of proceedings was justified in the absence of supporting material.
Taking an overall view of the facts and evidence, the Supreme Court held that there was no material to substantiate the allegations of forgery or absence of consent. It concluded that the procedure adopted by the doctor was medically recognized and that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal case pending before the Magistrate. The judgment reinforces the need to protect medical professionals from unwarranted criminal prosecution while also highlighting the importance of proper and informed consent in medical practice.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. S. Balagopal Versus State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Citation: JURISHOUR-623-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (Crl) No.14803/2023
Date: 06/04/2026
Read More: Mere Use of Abusive Word ‘Not Obscenity’: Supreme Court
