ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.152 of 2015 by which his challenge to order dated 20.07.2015 rejecting his application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. has failed. 2. Stand taken by the petitioner is that the uncontroverted materials such as the invoice dated 01.07.2013 which forms part of the case-diary and the fact that the loan amount has been withdrawn by the wife of the complainant have not been taken into account by the trial magistrate which renders the order dated 20.07.2015 unsustainable in law. 3. On the allegation that the petitioner was given Rs.1 lakh for fixed-deposit and he induced the complainant for arranging loan which was sanctioned however the loan amount was misappropriated by him, Complaint Case No.423 of 2014 was filed, which by an order dated 29.08.2014 was referred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police and accordingly Bermo P.S Case No.14 of 2015 was lodged in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 420/468/506 I.P.C. Cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken by the court on 28.04.2015 and the application of the petitioner for his discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by an order dated 20.07.2015. The revisional order records that the witnesses namely, Zabir Khan, Khurshid Alam and Shafique Khan have stated before the investigating officer that the petitioner induced the complainant for taking loan and after the loan was sanctioned he misappropriated the loan amount. It has also been found during the course of investigation that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has cheated other persons also in similar manner for which cases are pending against him. During the investigation the independent witnesses-Sohail and Pawan Singh were examined and their statements have been recorded in paragraph nos.43 and 44 of the case-diary. 4. By now it is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge all that the trial judge is required to see whether a case for the offence as alleged against the accused person has been made out or not. It is not the providence of the trial judge to sift the evidence, probe into the contradiction in the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation and come to a conclusion that the evidence brought on record is sufficient for conviction or not. It is not the providence of the trial judge to sift the evidence, probe into the contradiction in the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation and come to a conclusion that the evidence brought on record is sufficient for conviction or not. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on the contradictions are really matters for trial and this is not the stage when the court can look into the defence of accused person. It is the stage of “strong suspicion”. From the materials which have been collected during the course of investigation reference of which finds mention in the impugned order dated 01.12.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.152 of 2015, I find that the trial judge has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 20.07.2015. 5. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no merit in this quash-petition and accordingly, Cr. M.P. No.899 of 2017 is dismissed.