Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter), is directed against the order dated 011.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 160/2005, whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 307/149, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned and challan papers. I have carefully gone through the injury report of injured Vijay, Vinod and Rajkumar as also report of Radiologist. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has confined his arguments only to the extent of order framing charge for the offence under Section 307/149, IPC and does not challenge the charges framed for the other offences as noticed above. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is a cross case arising out of FIR No. 112/2005 dated 24.05.2005 P.S. Govardhan Vilas, Udaipur. He has filed the challan papers of the cross case also in which after investigation the police filed challan against complainant party namely Ghanshyam, Pappuraj and Kailash for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34, IPC. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. 6. From the perusal of the challan papers, it appears that at the spur of the moment the occurrence is said to have taken place at hotel and both the parties caused injuries to each other. The injuries suffered by injured Vijay are simple in nature by blunt object. Injured Vinod suffered single injury on the left forearm by sharp edged weapon resulted in fracture of Ulna bone, thus punishable under Section 326, IPC. The injuries suffered by other injured Rajkumar are simple in nature, on being examined by the Radiologist, it was noticed that no bony injury has been suffered by injured Rajkumar. Injured Vinod suffered single injury on the left forearm by sharp edged weapon resulted in fracture of Ulna bone, thus punishable under Section 326, IPC. The injuries suffered by other injured Rajkumar are simple in nature, on being examined by the Radiologist, it was noticed that no bony injury has been suffered by injured Rajkumar. From the statement of witnesses and nature of injuries suffered by the complainant party, it cannot be said that the petitioners caused injuries with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, would be guilty of murder. The very essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307, IPC are not made out from the material on record. More so, as noticed above, the occurrence took place at the hotel at the spur of the moment and both the parties suffered injuries. Thus, there was a free fight between the parties causing injuries to each other. In the circumstances, therefore, prima facie it cannot be inferred that the petitioners made an attempt to cause murder. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 011.2005 to the extent framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307/149, IPC cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 011.2005 to the extent framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 307/149, IPC is set-aside. The petitioners are discharged of the offence under Section 307/149, IPC. However, the charges framed against the petitioners for the other offences under Sections 148, 452, 323, 324, 326 and 427, IPC are maintained. Stay application stands disposed of .