Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Biting Case, Rules Human Teeth Not a ‘Dangerous Weapon’
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Biting Case, Rules Human Teeth Not a ‘Dangerous Weapon’
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that human teeth cannot be classified as a dangerous weapon under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and consequently, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2020 that involved an alleged biting incident during a family dispute.
On April 4, a division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh of the Aurangabad bench set aside the FIR in which the complainant had accused her sisters-in-law of physical assault, claiming that one of them bit her during an argument related to a property dispute.
Initially, the FIR invoked several charges including IPC Section 324, which addresses “voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”. However, the court clarified that human teeth do not fall within the legal definition of a weapon capable of inflicting grievous or fatal injuries. The medical documents submitted only recorded minor bite marks, supporting the court’s stance that the injuries were not serious.
The dispute reportedly arose over the construction of a makeshift road to transport bricks from a nearby kiln, to which the complainant objected. During the confrontation, she alleged that one sister-in-law bit her right hand and another bit her brother when he tried to intervene.
The judges observed that for Section 324 to apply, the injury must be caused by a tool or object that is typically capable of causing significant harm or death. Since teeth do not meet this criterion, the court stated the section was misapplied.
Furthermore, the accused argued that the complaint was an extension of an ongoing property conflict, intended to harass them legally. The court agreed, noting that forcing the applicants to stand trial would be “an abuse of the legal process”.
Highlighting that disputes between close relatives can often be misused to lodge exaggerated allegations, the bench added that legal proceedings should not be used as a weapon in family feuds. Therefore, it ordered the FIR to be dismissed, bringing closure to the matter.
