IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27075 of 2010 1. BRAJESH YADAV @ BRAJESH KUMAR YADAV 2. MUKESH KUMAR YADAV @ TIPRU YADAV 3. PUTUL YADAV ALL S/O LATE RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV 4. PAPPU YADAV 5. RITESH YADAV BOTH S/O HARIS CHANDRA YADAV ………………… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………. Opposite Party ----------- 2. 11.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 13.7.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 338/2003 in which the Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.C.-2nd Purnea has refused an application under Section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially the complaint had filed a substantive police case which was numbered as K.Hat P.S. Case No. 114/03, in which the police submitted charge sheet which was accepted by the court and, therefore, this complaint on the same facts is unwarranted. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is clear from the narrative of the complaint that no one was injured in the firing and therefore, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out. On going through the order impugned, I find that the court has considered the materials on record. Moreover, at the stage of framing of charge it is well known that the court cannot hold mini trial and it is within the domain of the Trial Court to determine as to what particular offence is made out in the facts of the case and ordinarily the Higher Court should not interfere in such matters. Further, the Trial Court is always at liberty to amend the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., if the evidence recorded during trial warrants such a requirement. In view of such, the application is disposed off with these observations. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )