JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 4-2-1988 of the Sessions Judge, Una whereby revision petition No. 20 of 1987 of respondents was accepted, order dated 28-7-1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una summoning them to face trial under sections 379 and 452, I. P. C. was set aside and complaint of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner had made a private complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una that on 10-4-1986 at 3.00 p m, he had gone out of his village after locking the shop in his occupation In the evening when he returned, he came to know that the respondents in his absence had broke open the lock of his shop and had taken away all the articles lying therein. He alleged that after removing the articles, the respondents had put their own lock in the shop and thereby restrained his access to it. According to him, amongst the articles removed by the respondents there were also cash and ornaments, which he had kept in his shop. 3. On receipt of complaint, the trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence and thereafter forwarded the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Una to get the inquiry conducted by some senior officer under section 202, Cr. P C After receiving the inquiry report, the trial Magistrate was not satisfied that prima facie case was made out for summoning the respondents and dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 8-7-1986. This order was set aside by the Sessions Judge in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the case was remanded to trial Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law. The Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 26-3-1987 had held that after himself conducting the preliminary inquiry, the trial Magistrate had no authorityto send the complaint for further inquiry by police under section 202, Cr. P. C. This order of Sessions Judge became final between the parties. In the second round, the trial Magistrate issued process against the respondents, which now stands quashed by the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner under section 401, Cr.P.C 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. There is no force in the contentions raised by Pt. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner under section 401, Cr.P.C 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. There is no force in the contentions raised by Pt. Om Prakash, learned Counsel for respondents that firstly the order dated 26th March, 1987 of the Sessions Judge was bad as the respondents were not made party in the revision petition before him and were not heard ; secondly, that the second revision petition is not maintainable. Since in the revision petition order refusing to issue process was under challenge, the respondents were not required to be tmpleaded as party respondents and had no right to be heard at that stage. So far the present revision petition is concerned, it is first one against the order of the Sessions Judge by which the petitioner is aggrieved. 5. On the other hand, Sh. T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited catena of case law to emphasise that the approach of the Sessions Judge is not correct to assess the complaint and preliminary evidence on record to find out whether the respondents are likely to be convicted ultimately according to him, for issuing process, trial Court is required to satisfy itself whether the complaint and the preliminary evidence produced before him disclose the ingredients of any offence. In the present case, the Sessions Judge, besides the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded before the trial Court has also taken into account the material collected by the police in inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C, which is illegal according to Sh. Chandel These arguments are attractive but do not fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. So far legal proposition is concerned, it is undisputed that for "sufficient ground for proceeding" under section 204, Cr.P.C. the trial Court is required to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the complaint and preliminary evidence on record constitute criminal offence. But if the trial Magistrate, from the material on record, finds that the complainant has suppressed material facts, consideration of which changes the nature, complexion and tenor of allegations, he may refuse to issue process merely on the allegations in the complaint and preliminary evidence. If this discretion is not given to the trial Magistrate, there will be abuse of the process of the Court and ends of justice will be defeated. If this discretion is not given to the trial Magistrate, there will be abuse of the process of the Court and ends of justice will be defeated. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had withheld the background under which the lock of his shop was broken open by the respondents and articles lying therein were given in Sapurdari. Admittedly, eviction order was passed against him by the Collector, Una, as far back as on 17-6-1985 in respect of the shop in question and the Tensiloar, Una, had been directed to take over the possession of the shop by using such force as may be found necessary by a further order passed by the Collector, Una. As such the respondents had acted in compliance to the orders of the Collector, Una. Above all, son of the petitioner was also present at the relevant time and he was handed over Sapurdari of sweets found in the shop at the time of taking its possession. The petitioner had intentionally suppressed these facts in order to give different colour to the incident. Moreover, seven years have passed since the incident had happened and the respondents have been dragged into litigation. Therefore, further prolonging the matter will defeat the ends of justice instead of promoting it. 6. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.