JUDGMENT - Y. KRISHAN, Member:---In Original Petition No. 74 of 1992, the complainant has alleged that after adjustment of its overdraft account with the opposite party Bank, a sum of Rs. 12,45,481.48 was outstanding in the credit account of the complainant and that the said amount should be refunded to the complainant along with interest at 18 per cent from 15-12-1981 till the finalisation of the account. In addition, he has claimed compensation of Rs. 40,15,508/- for loss of business, reputation, injury and hardship caused to the complainant by the failure of the opposite party Bank to comply with the instructions of the complainant for months together to close down prematurely the money multiplier deposit scheme (M.M.D.S.) on 22nd September, 1989, but it was actually closed on 15th December, 1989, arbitrarily, unilaterally without lawful authority, etc. and adjusted against the overdraft account. 2. Original Petition No. 76 asked for directions to be given to the opposite party Bank to recalculate the entire overdraft account in the light of the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, also recalculate the overdraft account in respect of the overdraft availed and the interest payable thereon, etc. 3. We have gone through the complaint petition and the reply of the opposite party and also heard the counsel for the parties. We find that the case is quite complex and complicated, facts extending over a long period are in dispute requiring considerable oral and documentary evidence which can only be appropriately adduced and adequately dealt with by a Civil Court. 4. In addition, we find from the reply of the opposite party that the complainant is a defaulter in relation to the Bank who has committed fraud for which he is being prosecuted under sections 420, 467 and 468, Indian Penal Code. According to the reply of the opposite party, he was arrested and detained for several days and subsequently released on bail and the criminal case is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna. According to the opposite party, the complainant while availing cheque discounting facilities committed fraud on the opposite party Bank by discounting his own cheques on the Bank drawn on accounts which had already been closed by the complainant without providing sufficient funds for such cheques in different accounts and thus the complainant had cheated the opposite party Bank to the tune of Rs. 33,00,000/-, i.e., by issuing six uninvoiced cheques in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. There are also other allegations, viz., that the opposite party having been arrested for attempting to encash a forged and bogus cheque for a sum of Rs. 52,00,000/-, trying to encash a fake pay order of Rs. 20,00,000/- and issuing 29 bogus cheques. 5. All these facts indicate the complicated nature of this case requiring elaborate evidence being taken from both the parties. We have no doubt that Consumer Forums are not the appropriate forums for adjudication of such cases and disputes. We, therefore, dismiss both the complaint petitions, Original Petition Nos. 74 and 76 of 1992, reserving liberty to the complainant to seek redress in the appropriate Forums. Complaints dismissed.