JUDGMENT M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- This petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking an inquiry by Internal Vigilance Cell, Punjab Police, Chandigarh to look into the allegations and false implication of the petitioner in four FIRs, mentioned in the title of the petition. At the time of arguments on 6.7.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner and his brother had been held to be innocent in an inquiry conducted by the Internal Vigilance Cell but there was apprehension of the petitioner that he has been involved in other four FIRs, mentioned herein above. 2. Notice of motion was issued to A.G. Punjab for today to report whether the petitioner is required in the four FIRs, mentioned in the petition. It has been reported by the learned State counsel, on the instructions of SI Devinder Parsad from Jalandhar that on inquiry the name of the petitioner has been found to be involved in FIR No.22 dated 17.4.2010 u/s 420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Section 13A/3/67 of Punjab Gambling Act P.S. New Bara Dari, Jalandhar and FIR No. 319 dated 2.10.2009 u/s 13A/3/67 of Puinjab Gambling Act and Section 420 IPC, registered at P.S. Division No.4, Jalandhar 3. Involvement of the petitioner in FIR No.63 dated 26.2.2010 and FIR No.56 dated 11.4.2010 has not been pointed at this stage. 4. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy u/s 438 Cr.P.C before Sessions Court. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been earlier involved in FIR Nos.330 and 331 of 2005, registered at P.S. Division No.4 Jalandhar but the petitioner was found to be innocent in the said cases. In a petition, filed in the High Court by the petitioner, some contradictory affidavits had been filed and the petitioner had sought an action, on the basis of those affidavits, as such the petitioner has now been involved in other cases in order to pressurize him. I have considered the said contention but I am of the opinion that in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief, especially when he has been nominated as an accused in two specific FIRs. I have considered the said contention but I am of the opinion that in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief, especially when he has been nominated as an accused in two specific FIRs. It is, however, open to the petitioner to seek further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, if permissible or to seek acquittal by impeaching the credibility of the prosecution agency during trial. ------------