ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

1 Present application has been filed for quashment of proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.163/2020 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.132/2020 dated 26.04.2020 registered with Police Station, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad/Dharashiv, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Karpe holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Dhobale for applicants, learned APP Mr. N.R. Dayama for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. N.L. Jadhav for respondent No.2. Perused affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2 Smt. Maya Satish Solankar.

3 It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of applicants that perusal of First Information Report and charge sheet is not disclosing the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections are non cognizable in nature. The First Information Report is the result of concoction and previous disputes. Perusal of injury certificate issued by Sub District Hospital, Omerga would show that when the informant was examined, there was only one injury i.e. Contused Lacerated Wound, 2 x 2 x 0.2 cms. approximately in size on right arm, probable weapon is hard and blunt object and nature of injury is stated to be simple. Injury Certificate of one Laxman Mane would also show that he had one injury i.e. Contused Lacerated Wound, 4 x 2 x 0.2 cms. approximately in size on left forearm with hard and blunt object and it was simple injury. As per the First Information Report, the informant, who is daughter-in-law of applicant Nos.3 and 4 and sister-in-law of applicant No.1 and co-sister of applicant No.2, was demanding her share and had also lodged suit for partition in land, house and brick kiln. She states that on 26.04.2020 around 6.00 p.m. she found that applicants were preparing road by means of JCB for transporting bricks from the brick kiln. She told the applicants that they should not transport the bricks till the decision by the Court. However, all the accused persons asked her, as to who is she to ask them and she was assaulted on that count. Applicant No.2 had taken bite of her right hand, causing injury to her. When her brother Laxman Mane had tried to rescue her, applicant Nos.1 and 3 had assaulted him by giving kicks and fists. Applicant No.1 had taken bite of left

hand of Laxman. Human teeth cannot be said to be a weapon is described in Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He relies on the decision in Shakeel Ahmed vs. State of Delhi [(2004) 10 SCC 103], wherein it is held in respect of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code that -

“Teeth of human being cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the offence cannot escalate to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It can best remain only at Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.”

3.1 He also relies on the decision of the Single Bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench in Lakshmana Reddy Yane Lakshmi Reddy s/o Gadilingappa and another vs. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.100181 of 2014 decided on 20.07.2023, wherein Shakeel Shmed (supra) was relied and, therefore, 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 other Sections being non cognizable in nature, matter cannot proceed.

4 Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application and submit that the human teeth have been used as weapon in the present matter and it would be upon the explanation by the Medical Officer. It would be decided as to whether it is