S. BALAGOPAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal arises from a petition [CRL. O.P. No. 23349/2016] filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 13 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee [The learned Magistrate]. By the order impugned dtd. 25/9/2023, the High Court of Judicature at Madras [The High Court] rejected the prayer to quash the proceedings and issued a direction to expedite the same.

(3.) The second respondent (R-2) i.e., the de facto complainant made a complaint, inter alia, alleging that his son, aged one and one-half years, was admitted in a hospital for a surgical procedure as one of his testicles had not descended into the scrotal sac. According to R-2, doctors had obtained his consent for Orchidopexy (i.e., the surgical procedure that moves an undescended testicle into the scrotum), but there was no consent for Orchidectomy (i.e., removal of testicle). R-2 also alleged that prior to the surgery, the operating surgeon had explained that in 99 percent of such cases there is no need to remove the testicle. Therefore, specific consent for Orchidectomy was neither sought nor given. Yet, Orchidectomy was performed and in the consent form, by interpolation, Orchidectomy was inserted, which amounted to an offence of forgery.