JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No. 1, Kota, whereby learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking to cross examine the prosecutrix on certain points in session case No. 55/2015. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix was put to interrogatory that in which year her mother-in-law expired to test her veracity and certain more questions were to be asked but learned court below did not permit the interrogatory and abruptly closed the cross examination, question interrogated, was relevant since the petitioner has wrongly been framed owing to property dispute and to oust the truth, petitioner be permitted to cross examine the prosecutrix so court below be directed for the same after allowing the petition. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and has submitted that enough cross examination was made by the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be permitted to cross examine the prosecutrix again since it will fortify the agony of prosecutrix perperated outrage. 4. Heard and gone through the record, which reflects that prosecutrix Smt. Lata Sharma, a 41 years old woman, has thoroughly and elaborately been cross examined, copy of the statements of the prosecutrix reflects that she has been cross examined in two pages, even an interrogatory has been put to her and she has replied ;g tkurs gq, fd ohjsUnz fookfgr gS mlds 'kknh ds okns ij 'kkjhfjd lEcU/k cukrh gksaa she has further been put to an interrogatory 'kkjhfjd lEcU/k cukus ls igys ;g eq>ls 'kknh dk oknk ugha djrk FkkA eSa iqfyl esa fjiksVZ djus dh /kedh nsrh FkhA ysfdu cPpksa ds ekjus dh /kedh dh otg ls eSa iqfyl esa ugha tkrh Fkh in the concluding para the prosecutrix has been put to an interrogatory that her mother-in-law had breathed her last retro to 2006 and she has replied *2006 ls igys esjh lkl ej pqdh FkhA muds ejus dk lky eq>s ;kn ugh gS D;ksfd eq>s ejus dk crk;k gh ugha* 5. Perusal of the examination of prosecutrix and her cross examination discloses that enough relevant interrogatories and cross examination has already been made with the prosecutrix and there appears no reason to permit the petitioner at this stage for further cross-examination. 6. Perusal of the examination of prosecutrix and her cross examination discloses that enough relevant interrogatories and cross examination has already been made with the prosecutrix and there appears no reason to permit the petitioner at this stage for further cross-examination. 6. Perusal of order-sheets reflects that trial is still subjudice and statement of PW-9 were recorded on 09.04.2019 since trial has commenced in the year 2016 and 14.05.2019 was fixed before the trial court for recording of rest of the evidence of the prosecution. 7. In this view of the matter, it appears necessary to instruct the court below to endeavour to culminate the trial expeditiously without granting adjournments, preferably on dayto- day basis. 8. With aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed. 9. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to concerned trial court for necessary compliance.