ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to order for further CBCID investigation on right direction as per the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.06.2014 and dated 10.09.2015 and without any further delay. 2. Heard the petitioner/Party-in-Person. 3. Shorn of unnecessary frills, the case of the petitioner can be summarized as follows:- (i) The petitioner is a lawyer by profession and on 07.02.2014, when he was going by his motorbike, it is alleged by him that two unknown persons came in a bike and attacked him with stick on his head and shoulder, on account of which, he fell down unconscious on the road. When he gained consciousness, he found himself admitted in Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. It is his contention that this incident has been camouflaged by Police and the Police have made it look as if it was a road accident. (ii) On the contrary, records show that a case in Natham Crime No.36 of 2014 was registered on 08.02.2014 at 21:00 hours on the complaint given by one Angaiarkanni for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The said Angaiarkanni is none other than the wife of the petitioner. (iii) Police received information from Vadamalayan Hospitals (P) Ltd., Madurai that a patient involving in medico-legal case has been admitted in the hospital and when they went there, they found Angaiarkanni, who gave a statement in which, she stated that there was a road accident on 07.02.2014, involving the Motorbike bearing Reg.No.TDO 8638, driven by her husband and Yamaha TN-57 AK 5143, driven by one Vivek, in which her husband and Vivek sustained injuries and both of them were rushed to Madurai Rajaji Hospital at 11:45 hrs. (iv) At the request of Angaiarkanni, her husband Prakasam was shifted to Vadamalayan Hospitals for better treatment. Prakasam was discharged from Vadamalayan Hospital on 06.03.2014 and thereafter, on 07.06.2014, he has given a representation to Senior Police Officers, alleging that he was actually attacked by two persons with stick on 07.02.2014 at the instance of one Samy Ambalam, Pandi, Veeranan and Rajmohan, against whom he seems to have filed some cases. Therefore, the point for determination by this Court is whether the incident was a road accident or a deliberate attack, as alleged by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the point for determination by this Court is whether the incident was a road accident or a deliberate attack, as alleged by the petitioner. 4. The discharge summary issued by Vadamalayan Hospital that has been filed by the petitioner in the typeset of papers clearly shows that it was the case of road accident and the petitioner was conscious at the time of admission to the Vadamalayan Hospital on 08.02.2014 at 00:55 hours and that he was discharged on 06.03.2014. Records also show that both the petitioner and Vivek were first admitted to the Government Hospital, Madurai and both their vehicles were detained by the Police for inspection by the Brake Inspector. After completing the investigation, Police filed a final report on 20.07.2014 against Vivek for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, which was taken on file in STC No. 645 of 2014 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham. On summons, Vivek appeared before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham on 06.08.2015 and pleaded guilty to the charges. He was convicted for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and was sentenced to pay Rs.1500/- for both offences in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each of the offences. He paid the fine amount and was released. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the entire investigation was biased and that the Police have made it look as if it was a road accident, when actually it was an assault on him. 6. On a careful perusal of the records, I am unable to agree with the submission for the following reasons:- (a) The FIR in Crime No.36 of 2014 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered at the instance of Angaiarkanni, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner. Though Angaiarkanni is not a witness to the happening, yet her statement in the FIR that her husband Prakasam and Vivek were both admitted in the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital from where she took her husband to Vadamalayan Hospital, cannot be stated to be a hearsay. Apart from that, the registration numbers of both vehicles involved in the accident find place in her complaint. This is not a case of hit and run. (b) The discharge summary of Vadamalayan Hospital clearly shows that the petitioner did not suffer from loss of consciousness, which means that the petitioner was conscious. Apart from that, the registration numbers of both vehicles involved in the accident find place in her complaint. This is not a case of hit and run. (b) The discharge summary of Vadamalayan Hospital clearly shows that the petitioner did not suffer from loss of consciousness, which means that the petitioner was conscious. While in the hospital, the petitioner never took the plea that it was not a road accident. For the first time, he took the plea only on 07.06.2014, though he was discharged from the hospital on 06.03.2014 itself. 7. Investigation in this case was not done in a hurried manner. Police sent both vehicles to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for brake test and the final report was filed only on 20.07.2014. Even after that, the trial was not hurriedly held. Summons were issued to Vivek and he appeared before the Magistrate on 06.08.2015 and pleaded guilty to the charges. 8. Taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to direct the respondents to order further investigation by CBCID. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.