As per case facts, the second respondent (R-2) alleged that his son underwent an orchidectomy without specific consent for that procedure, claiming forgery in the consent form. An FIR was ... registered, and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, the operating surgeon. The High Court rejected the initial quashing petition but directed a Medical Board to investigate. Following the board's report, which found the procedure appropriate, the High Court again dismissed the appellant's plea to quash, prompting this appeal. The question arose whether the criminal proceedings against the surgeon for forgery and negligence, regarding the consent form and the performed orchidectomy, should be quashed given the medical board's opinion supporting the surgical procedure and the lack of clear evidence of malicious interpolation. Finally, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the Medical Board's view that orchidectomy was an appropriate and recognized alternative to prevent future malignancy, and noting no malice or suspicious alteration in the consent form (which had both procedures listed), determined that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed.