Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2026 INSC 319 - S.482 CrPC - Questions of Fact
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Ordinarily, an issue of tampering/ interpolation in a document being a question of fact is to be determined in a trial based on evidence led therein and, therefore, courts must be loath to examine such issues in a summary proceeding, like the one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, there can be no absolute bar on High Court’s power to consider questions of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., particularly when such consideration is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. (Para 18) [Context: The case concerns a paediatric surgeon who performed a left orchidectomy on a two‑year‑old with undescended testis after obtaining a written consent form that mentioned “Bilateral Orchidopexy / Left Orchidectomy,” which the child’s father later alleged had been interpolated and led to criminal proceedings for rashness, forgery, and related offences. A government Medical Board and the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services opined that orchidectomy was an appropriate, ethics‑compliant procedure in such circumstances and that the consent form, as produced, appeared in order, with no evidence of tampering or medical negligence. Relying on the expert material and the limited criminal law threshold for proceeding against doctors, the Supreme Court held that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of process, quashed criminal proceedings and allowed the appeal.]
Case Info
Case Information Extracted
Case name and neutral citation:Dr. S. Balagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2026 INSC 319
Coram:Justice Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra (judgment authored by Manoj Misra, J.)
Judgment date:06 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
- Includes reference to the Bolam test via: Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 1 WLR 582 : (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)
Statutes / laws referred:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 312, 325, 336, 406, 426, 465, 468, 471, 501(1) & (2), and 201 (as appearing across FIR/charge-sheet and discussion)
- General Exceptions: Section 88 and Section 92 (acts done in good faith for a person’s benefit)
Three‑sentence Brief Summary
The case concerns a paediatric surgeon who performed a left orchidectomy on a two‑year‑old with undescended testis after obtaining a written consent form that mentioned “Bilateral Orchidopexy / Left Orchidectomy,” which the child’s father later alleged had been interpolated and led to criminal proceedings for rashness, forgery, and related offences. A government Medical Board and the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services opined that orchidectomy was an appropriate, ethics‑compliant procedure in such circumstances and that the consent form, as produced, appeared in order, with no evidence of tampering or medical negligence. Relying on the expert material and the limited criminal law threshold for proceeding against doctors, the Supreme Court held that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of process, quashed C.C. No. 13 of 2008, and allowed the appeal.
