JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. These Applications arise in similar background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment challenging order of issuance of process in a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Before I assess the submissions made at the bar in the light of individual facts, it would be convenient to note broad contours of controversy in the present Applications. Primary facts may be noted from Criminal Application Nos. 781, 785, 783 of 2022 which are filed by the accused No. 3 The amounts mentioned in the complaint were advanced by complainant to the accused firm as a loan on interest. Towards re-payment of the said amount, accused firm issued a promissory note and cheque. On cheque being dishonoured, the complainant issued a demand notice, which according to the applicant had not been received by her. According to the complainant in spite of receipt of notice the accused failed to pay the amount within fifteen (15) days and, therefore, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be filed against the applicants.

3. Learned Magistrate by order dated 2nd January, 2021 issued process against the applicants. The applicant challenged the order of issuance of process by filing revision before Sessions Court which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 18th February, 2022. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have filed present criminal applications.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant made following submissions:

(a) The averments made in the complaint are not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(b) The applicant not being signatory on the cheque is not liable under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on vague averments made in the complaint.

(c) There is no valid demand, as the averments in the complaint itself shows that applicant had moved out of the address mentioned in the notice.

(d) There is no legally recoverable liability as the cheque was issued by the complainant for recovery of loan and interest therefore the transaction is barred under the provisions of Money Lending Act.

(e) In the complaint itself it is mentioned that a promissory note had been issued by the complainant and, therefore, the transaction in question is a money lending transaction under the provisions of Maharashtra Money Lending Act.

(f) The expression ‘business’ has not been defined in the said Act and, therefore, the same needs to be interpreted relying on the definition of ‘business’ in the Income Tax Act, 1960, which would make transaction in question as money lending transaction. Therefore in the absence of licence, the debt in question is not legally recoverable liability.

(g) Even a single transaction can be termed as money lending transaction therefore it is not necessary that there should be multiple transactions to attract the rigors of money lending act.

(h) The learned advocate for the applicant relied on the unreported judgment of this Court in Monica Sunit Ujjain vs. Sanchu M. Menon and Others, Criminal Revision Application No. 394 of 2015 decided on 2nd August 2022 and Anil S/o Baburao Kataria vs. Purshottam S/o Prabhakar Kawane, 2010 Cri. L.J. 1217, Girdhari Parmanand Motaini vs. Vinayak Bhagwan Khavnekar and Others, 2016 All MR (Cri.) 1909 and Smt. Nanda W/o Dharam Nandanwar vs. Nandkishor S/o Talakram Thaokar, MANU/MH/0069/2010.

5. Per contra, the learned advocate for the complainant invited my attention to the letter dated 21st June 2019 issued by accused No. 2 wherein he admitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 both are looking after the business of accused No. 1/partnership firm. He also invited my attention to the address mentioned in the letter which is the address of demand notice. In the cause title of present application and in the verification before the learned Magistrate, same address is mentioned. He submitted that in Criminal Application No. 784 of