' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.--- It has been contended by the petitioner in his petition that the learned Magistrate has wrongly exercised jurisdiction while cancelling the case and bestowing accused with the discharge order. He has further asserted that the Magistrate can exercise its powers under section 169, Cr.P.C. Only when the evidence is deficient and reasonable grounds do not exist. He has complained that this is not a case of insufficiency of evidence and non-existence of reasonable grounds; that learned Magistrate has passed a slipshod order and discharged the accused without affording any reason therefrom. Lastly, he has pleaded that the learned Magistrate has not taken care of consulting the record. He relies upon the case reported as Shujjat Ali v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1665.
2. Conversely the learned A.A.-G. And learned counsel appearing for counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, vehemently opposed the writ petition on the score that the learned Magistrate has passed a comprehensive order and that he has also discussed the evidence available on record; that the complainant had miserably failed to establish its case on record and thus, the opinion having been relied upon by the Magistrate was well based. They further submit that the order was passed by the learned Magistrate under section 169, Cr.P.C. Calls for no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. After considering the respective arguments of the parties and going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that deficient evidence was on record against the accused/respondents. On the strength of the said evidence, the accused could not have been sent to face trial, because it would have been a futile exercise and wastage of time of the A Court. Learned Magistrate has consulted the record and discussed it in his impugned order. I do not find any exception to disturb the said order. The writ petition having been filed by the petitioner carries no substance at all. The judgment having been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
For what has been discussed above, the present petition is dismissed.