Mumbai: Noting that human teeth cannot be considered a dangerous weapon under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her in-laws for allegedly biting her during a scuffle.
A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh of the Aurangabad bench, on April 4, quashed the FIR registered in April 2020, where the complainant had accused her sisters-in-law of assault, claiming one of them bit her during a dispute.
The FIR had led to the registration of offences under relevant IPC sections, including Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means). However, the HC held that “human teeth cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon”, and noted that the medical certificates submitted by the complainant showed only simple hurt caused by bite marks.
The complainant had alleged that she was assaulted when she objected to her in-laws preparing a road to transport bricks from a kiln, despite an ongoing property dispute. She claimed one sister-in-law bit her right hand, while another bit her brother when he tried to intervene.
The court observed, “Under Section 324 of the IPC, the hurt should be by means of an instrument that is likely to cause death or serious harm.” Since the injuries in this case were not serious and only amounted to simple hurt, the court held that the offence under Section 324 was not made out.
“When the nature of the injury as per the medical report is simple in nature, but human teeth cannot be considered as the weapon of shooting, stabbing, cutting etc., then the ingredients of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are not at all attracted,” the bench said.
The accused contended that the FIR was motivated by a property dispute and amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The High Court agreed, saying it would be unjust to make the applicants face trial.
“There appears to be a property dispute between applicants and respondent No.2 (woman)… Enmity or disputes are in fact, double-edged weapons, which may cut both of them,” the HC remarked. Hence, the HC quashed the FIR observing: “It would be an abuse of process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial.”
