MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2012 as also the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case No.1776 of 2012, whereby the application of the petitioner, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to add Smt. Krishna (the mother-in-law of the daughter of the petitioner), Baby, Ritu, Kanti (sister-in-laws of the daughter of the petitioner), has been rejected. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner lodged a First Information Report on 13.08.2008, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, against the husband, father-in-law, Jeth and Jethani of her daughter, with the allegations that they had been harassing her daughter for dowry. A charge sheet was laid against the said accused persons. During the course of trial, statement of the informant was recorded as P.W.1 and the statement of her daughter was also recorded as P.W.2. On the strength of the statement of P.W.2, an application was moved to add the mother-in-law and three sister-in-laws (Nanand) as accused, against whom there was no allegation with regard to harassment for dowry. The court below rejected the application, and the revision against the order was also dismissed. Challenging the said orders, the present petition has been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has primarily rejected the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the complicity of the persons proposed to be added as an accused, was not disclosed from the stage of the First Information Report as also during investigation. It has been contended that from the testimony of the victim (the daughter of the petitioner), who was examined as P.W.2, the complicity of the opposite party? nos.2 to 5 was disclosed, therefore, the court below committed manifest error of law by not? exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for adding the aforesaid persons as accused. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and have also perused the statement of the victim Sapna, who was examined as P.W.2. In her entire statement, the allegation of P.W.2 with regards to harassment and demand of dowry was against her husband Prashant, father-in-law (Mashuriya Deen), elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Rahul and elder sister-in-law (Jethani) Madhu. It was only towards the fag end of her statement-in-chief, it was stated that, when she was pregnant, her mother-in-law Krishna, her sister-in-law Ritu, her husband Prashant, her elder brother-in-law (Jeth) Rahul and her elder sister-in-law (Jethani) Madhu, in the night, gave her some poison, which resulted in her becoming unconscious and when she regained consciousness she discovered that there was a miscarriage. This statement of the P.W.2 is vague and does not inspire confidence, particularly in absence of any allegation with respect to demand of dowry or harassment by the persons proposed to be added as accused and also in absence of any corroboratory material/evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power, which has to be exercised sparingly, upon satisfaction that the evidence led before the court is reasonably sufficient to record conviction, I am of the view that once the courts below have come to the conclusion that the main thrust of the allegations was against the husband, father-in-law, elder-brother-in-law (Jeth) and elder sister-in-law (Jethani) and that there was no sufficient material to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the court below, particularly when it cannot be said to have been exercised against settled principles of law. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. ;