High Court Can Examine Questions Of Fact Under Section 482 CrPC To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Surgeon

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 06, 2026, held that High Courts are not completely barred from examining questions of fact while exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Pamidigantam Sri Narasimha observed that such factual evaluation is permissible when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the judicial process. The court made these observations while quashing a criminal case of forgery and medical negligence against a pediatric surgeon.

The father of a two-year-old child filed a police complaint against a surgeon who operated on his son for an undescended testicle. The complainant alleged that he had only consented to an Orchidopexy (retaining the testicle), but the doctor performed an Orchidectomy (removal of the testicle) without consent. It was further alleged that the doctor forged the consent form by interpolating the word 'Orchidectomy' to escape legal liability. After the police filed a chargesheet, the doctor approached the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings, but his plea was rejected, prompting the present appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings despite an expert medical board concluding that the surgical procedure was appropriate. The court was also called upon to determine if the alleged interpolation in a medical consent form inherently required a full trial or if it could be examined in a summary proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.

High Courts Can Examine Facts Under Section 482 CrPC

The Supreme Court noted that the central dispute revolved around whether the consent form had been tampered with to include the alternative surgical procedure. While acknowledging that issues of forgery are generally matters for trial, the bench carved out an important caveat regarding the inherent powers of the High Court. The court ruled that constitutional courts must intervene if the undisputed material on record points to a clear abuse of the legal process.

"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... However, there can be no absolute bar on High Court’s power to consider questions of fact."

Medical Board Vindicated The Surgeon's Action

Delving into the facts, the court placed heavy reliance on the findings of a specialized Medical Board constituted under the earlier directions of the High Court. The board, comprising a pediatric surgeon, a pathologist, and an oncologist, had unequivocally concluded that removing the testicle was medically necessary. The experts noted that the affected testicle was merely a "nubbin of tissue" that presented a high risk of future malignancy.

"In case of Nubbin of tissue as it does not serve the purpose (testis shape, sperm production) and more chance of malignant transformation orchidectomy is preferred than doing orchidopexy."

No Material To Suggest Forgery Or Tampering

The bench observed that the medical situation justified the alternative procedure and that the operating surgeon is always the best judge to decide the appropriate course of action during surgery. Examining the contested consent form, the court found no prima facie evidence of manipulation. The printed form listed "Bilateral Orchidopexy/Left Orchidectomy", separated by a slash, indicating that both surgical options were transparently kept open.

Independent Medical Opinion Is Crucial

The court referenced the landmark judgment in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, which established safeguards against prosecuting medical professionals and mandated the application of the Bolam test. While noting that the present dispute was primarily about consent rather than standard medical negligence, the bench underscored the critical importance of the independent medical opinion on record. The court observed that the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services had reviewed the consent form and found no fault, rendering the forgery allegations baseless.

"Taking a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances as also that there is no material on record that alternative surgery, namely, Orchidectomy, was entered by a different ink or in a different handwriting... continuance of criminal proceeding against the appellant would be nothing but abuse of the process of the court."

Finding no malice on the part of the doctor and noting that the procedure adopted was a recognized medical alternative, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the Madras High Court were set aside, and the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate in Poonamallee were entirely quashed to secure the ends of justice.

Date of Decision: April 06, 2026