A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh quashed a case filed against a family of five while relying on a precedent set by the apex court in Shakeel Ahmed (2004). In that case, it was held that human teeth cannot be a deadly weapon under Section 326 of the IPC, which deals with causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon.

The Court held that the precedent is applicable in the instant case as well, ruling,

The case arose from a family dispute over property between the Solankar family and their daughter-in-law, Maya, who had filed a lawsuit for a share of the family property, which included land, a house and a brick kiln.

On April 26, 2020, Maya confronted Tanaji Shivaji Solankar, her brother-in-law as they were preparing to transport bricks from the kiln. She asked them not to transport the bricks until the court decided on the property dispute.

This request led to a confrontation, with Maya alleging that Tanaji, his wife Vanmala and his father Shivaji assaulted her. Maya claimed that Vanmala bit her right hand and that Tanaji and Shivaji assaulted her brother, Laxman Mane, when he tried to intervene, with Tanaji allegedly biting Laxman’s left forearm.

The injuries sustained by both Maya and Laxman were minor, classified as simple contused lacerated wounds. 

On Maya’s complaint, a first information report (FIR) was filed on charges under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC against the Solankars. They subsequently moved the High Court to quash the case.

The Court observed that the injuries caused by the applicants were minor and could not be considered as having been inflicted by a dangerous weapon. It further noted that based on the medical reports, the injuries were caused by a “hard and blunt object,” not human teeth. It thus held that there was no justification to continue the proceedings under Section 3