ORDER Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision, the petitioner complainant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 25.6.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in Cr.Case No.135/2011 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the respondents No.2 to 5 as additional accused to face trail with the charge-sheeted accused Sabir Hussain for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was rejected. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed the FIR No.123/2011 at the Police Station Bagod against the respondents and her husband Sabir Hussain for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC with the allegation that all the respondents, who were living in a joint family house and used to harass her on account of demand of dowry. She was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home because she failed to meet the illegal dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- made by the accused. The Police, after thorough investigation filed a charge-sheet only against the petitioner's husband Sabir Hussain. 4. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was commenced. The petitioner appeared as PW.1 at the trial and in her cross-examination, she admitted that after an untoward incident at Ajmer, she started living with her husband in a separate house. On going through the tenor of her statement, it is clear that the principal allegations of cruelty with the petitioner on account of bringing less dowry are attributed to Sabir Hussain, the husband. As against the other accused, there are omnibus and general allegations which do not satisfy the Court that these accused should be directed to be summoned for facing trial as additional accused. That apart, as per the factual report received from the trial Court, the trail is now at a fag end and only one witness remains to be examined. 5. In the background of the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The revision thus being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.