HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7701 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. 2. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. No. 209 of 2025 dated 12.08.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Risiya, District Bahraich. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. No. 209 of 2025 has been lodged under Section 118(2) B.N.S., which was Section 326 in I.P.C. along with other Sections, with the allegation that on account of biting by the applicant by his teeth, the finger of respondent no. 4/complainant has been amputated. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shakeel Ahmed Vs. State, Delhi passed in Criminal Appeal No. ..../2001 (arising out of SLP (Cr) 493/2001) dated 09.07.2001, has held that the teeth of human cannot be considered as deadly weapon as per the description of deadly weapon enumerated under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and, hence, the offence cannot escalate to Section 326 I.P.C. and can best remain only at Section 325 I.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, altered the conviction from Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In view of above, the submission is that, in case, the offence under Section 118(2) B.N.S., which is equivalent to Section 326 I.P.C. is converted into Section 117(2) B.N.S., which is equivalent to Section 325 I.P.C., the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C., in which, the punishment is provided upto 7 years. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rahmat Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned A.G.A., though opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute the aforesaid legal position. 5. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed (supra) reads as under. “Leave granted. 2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Injuries, no doubt, are grievous as the phalanx of the index finger has been snipped off. But the allegation is that the assailant had bitten the index finger and caused the said injury. 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. It can best remain only at Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. We. therefore, alter the conviction to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The said change of the count of offence warrants change of the quantum of sentence also. In the interest of justice we deem it necessary to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months besides a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The sentence is accordingly modified. If he defaults in payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months. In case the fine amount is realised the victim shall be paid a sum of Rs.8000/- out of the said fine amount. The trial court shall see that the said amount is paid to the injured in case the fine amount is realised from the appellant. The appellant shall surrender to his bail. However, we may add that if the jail authorities shall determine whether any further period remains to be undergone by him to complete the sentence imposed no on him. 4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms." 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the record as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed (supra), this Court is of the view that since the matter is at the stage of investigation, the aforesaid directions are required to be considered by the Investigating Officer before proceeding further in the matter. 7. In view of the order proposed to be passed, the notice to respondent no. 4 is dispensed with. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer of F.I.R. No. 209 of 2025 (supra) to investigate the matter in view of the observations made hereinabove and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed CRLP No. 7701 of 2025 2 (supra) and file the police report, accordingly. 9. Till the filing of the police report, the petitioner shall not be arrested, subject to above. 10. It is further directed that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation, failing which, he shall not be entitled for the benefit of this order. August 26, 2025 VKS CRLP No. 7701 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench