1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The petitioner Abdul Majid is aggrieved by an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 5th of February 1973, whereby criminal proceedings commenced by the petitioner against his uncle Nawab Din under sections 406 and 418 of the Pakistan Penal Code were quashed as amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Judge has observed that civil litigation was already going on between the two in respect of a plot of land which the present petitioner had sold to a third party for a sum of Rs. 4,212. The matter was brought to the High Court by the respondent Nawab Din in a Regular Second Appeal, and an interim order regarding the maintenance of status quo was passed in his favour on the 21st of January 1971. It was only after the passing of this interim order in favour of the respondent that the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint against him on the 17th of March 1971, alleging misappropriation etc. In respect of certain amounts standing to the credit of the petitioner m the compensation book granted to him on the verification of his claim for property abandoned in India.
2. The High Court has expressed the view that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature, and criminal prosecution was lodged by the petitioner to bring pressure upon his uncle.
3. The petitioner has appeared before us in person, and has submitted that he was a minor and his uncle had acted dishonestly in misappropriating at least Rs. 1,678 due to the petitioner by way of cash compensation against his verified claim. The petitioner also submits that his uncle has cheated him in regard to his share in a factory established by the respondent, ostensibly by utilising a part of the deferred value of the petitioner's verified claim. The petitioner finally states that he was born on 15-2-1945 and the amount of Rs. 1678 was misappropriated by the respondent on 24-8-1965.
4. After hearing the petitioner and perusing the order under appeal, we are of the view that the High Court was right in thinking that the dispute between the parties was essentially of a civil nature, and the criminal prosecution lodged by the petitioner was indeed intended to bring pressure to bear upon his uncle for settling civil disputes which had arisen between them. The alleged misappropriation took place in 1965, when the petitioner was no longer a minor. He seems to have kept quiet for nearly six years, and instituted his complaint only after the respondent had obtained an interim order from the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. In these circumstances, there does not appear to be any justification for our interference in the matter.
5. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.