ORDER : Both these petitions arise out of the same crime of cheating and forgery allegedly committed by the persons who conduct the dealership of BMW cars in Kochi. The allegation is that, by resorting to forgery, the accused defrauded the purchasers of car as well as the Motor Vehicles Department by making the misrepresentation about the actual year of manufacture of cars sold to the customers. It is alleged that the accused extracted huge amounts from the car purchasers by selling cars manufactured in the past years, misrepresenting its year of manufacture as of recent years. 2. On the basis of the report of the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam, about the widespread fraud committed by the motor vehicle dealer in the above regard, the Maradu Police registered Crime No.774/2014 in respect of the offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420, 465 & 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the dealership by name ‘Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd.’ and its Managing Director and full time Director, who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3. After the completion of the investigation, the Assistant Commissioner, Crime Detachment, Kochi City, had filed the final report in the said case against the three accused, and it was taken on files as C.C.No.705/2016 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7677/2017 is the third accused in the said crime, which is sought to be quashed in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short, ‘Cr.PC’). 3. Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019 is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the same crime committed upon the de facto complainant in C.C.No.3331/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam, in connection with the sale of a BMW car of year of manufacture 2011, misrepresenting it as one manufactured in the year 2012. The petitioners therein are the accused Nos. 3 & 5 in the said case. The proceedings in C.C.No.3331/2018 were initiated by the learned Magistrate upon a private complaint filed by the aggrieved person through his Power of Attorney Holder. The petitioners therein are the accused Nos. 3 & 5 in the said case. The proceedings in C.C.No.3331/2018 were initiated by the learned Magistrate upon a private complaint filed by the aggrieved person through his Power of Attorney Holder. An excess amount of Rs.12,59,118/- is said to have been extracted from the de facto complainant in the said case by the accused by selling the car manufactured in the year 2011, by misleading the de facto complainant and the registration authorities that the year of manufacture of the said car was 2012. The de facto complainant in C.C.No.3331/2018 has been arraigned as CW12 in the final report filed in C.C.No.705/2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. 4. In both these petitions, the petitioners would contend that they are not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged crime relating to the sale of BMW cars of prior years under misrepresentation as that of recent ones. It is stated that the first petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019, who is the sole petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7677/2017, is only a Director of the company by name ‘Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd.’, and that she cannot be mulcted with the vicarious criminal liability for the alleged offence. The second petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019, who is said to be the Administration Manager of the said company, also challenges the prosecution against him upon the same ground. It is further contended by the above petitioners that the allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant do not constitute any of the offences attributed against them. Based on the aforesaid contentions, the proceedings in C.C.No.705/2016 & 3331/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam, are sought to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC of this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. It is true that a Director of a company cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company where he works as Director, unless it is shown that such Director was responsible for, and in charge of the conduct of affairs of the said company at the time of commission of the crime. 6. It is true that a Director of a company cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company where he works as Director, unless it is shown that such Director was responsible for, and in charge of the conduct of affairs of the said company at the time of commission of the crime. So also, there cannot be any vicarious liability fastened on the Director of a company in connection with a crime committed by any officer of that company during the course of its business. However, if in a given case it is shown that a person transacting with a company was cheated and fraudulently and dishonestly induced by any of the Directors of that company about a product being supplied by the said company, and thus, money has been collected from such person who would not have made payment of that money, if he had not been cheated, then such Director cannot evade from the criminal liability for cheating by taking shelter under the corporate veil of that company. As far as the present cases are concerned, the statements given by the aggrieved persons, including the complaint and the sworn statement given by the first respondent in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019, contained the clear indication about the active involvement of the petitioners in the deception perpetrated upon the purchasers of cars from the dealership by name ‘Platino Classic Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd.’, where they work as Director and Administration Manager. 7. In Annexure-A complaint in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019, the de facto complainant (first respondent) has stated in paragraph No.9 that all the accused induced him to believe that the BMW car proposed to be sold was 2012 model Alpine White 730Ld car with diesel engine, and that he decided to purchase the said car believing the assurance of all the accused in the above regard. Paragraph No.15 of the said complaint, reiterates the above aspect regarding the inducement made by all the accused about the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 2012. The sworn statement given by the Power of Attorney Holder of the second respondent is also in consonance with the above statements in the complaint. Therefore, the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019 cannot be heard to say that they were not having any involvement in the commission of offence. The sworn statement given by the Power of Attorney Holder of the second respondent is also in consonance with the above statements in the complaint. Therefore, the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.4743/2019 cannot be heard to say that they were not having any involvement in the commission of offence. Needless to say that the criminal prosecution initiated against them for the offence of cheating could not be termed as bad in the eye of law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners took much pain by referring to certain decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the context of Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to substantiate his argument that the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against in connection with the complaints in these cases. In all those decisions, the point emphasised is that in the absence of specific averments in the complaint as to how and what manner the Director of a company was responsible for the conduct of business of that company and its functioning, it was not possible to fasten such Director with criminal liability for the dishonour of the cheque issued by that company. The decisions rendered in the above context, and the other case laws pertaining to the absence of specific acts attributed to a Director which would exonerate such Director from the criminal liability relating to the offences committed by the company, are having no relevance in the facts and circumstances of these cases, wherein the aggrieved persons have pointed out the specific role played by the petitioners for cheating them by supplying old cars misrepresenting it as new ones. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the prosecution against them are to be terminated by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, is bereft of merit. As regards the offence of forgery also, the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam, is cited as CW1 in the final report filed in C.C.No.705/2016, to testify before the Trial Court about the manipulations made by the accused in the Month/Year of Manufacture of 33 vehicles registered at the Regional Transport Offices concerned. The above officer had constituted an enquiry team as per the directions of the Transport Commissioner, which after the conduct of enquiry found the widespread scam perpetrated in this regard by the accused. The above officer had constituted an enquiry team as per the directions of the Transport Commissioner, which after the conduct of enquiry found the widespread scam perpetrated in this regard by the accused. The statements of victims of the crime, cited as CW2 to CW16, would further point to the active involvement of the petitioners in this crime. The staff of the establishment of the accused are cited as CW17 to CW20, towards proving the modus operandi of the crime. Thus, it could be seen that the prosecution has garnered all the necessary evidence to establish the offence of cheating and forgery against the petitioners. True that the offence of criminal breach of trust covered under Sections 406 & 409 IPC, may not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of these cases. However, the above aspect is a matter to be taken care of by the Trial Court at the time of framing charges. At any rate, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the prosecution launched against them are liable to be nipped in the bud for the reasons stated in these petitions. Needless to say that the present petitions cannot survive the scrutiny of law. In the result, both these petitions are hereby dismissed.