Judgment 1. Petitioner challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.133 of 2011 on 02.02.2012, dismissing a complaint under section 204(4) Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to dispense with service of notice on the third respondent and has also made an endorsement to that effect. Recording the said endorsement, the service of notice on the third respondent is dispensed with. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 4. It is seen that in the case wherein cognizance stands taken, the complainant has been present before the Court below on all the hearing dates. However, on 02.12.2012, the Court below has passed the following order: “Complainant present. This case has been pending for the past six months. There is no effective steps taken to cause service of summon to the accused. Since the process has not been properly paid within the reasonable time granted by this court, it is a fit case to invoke sec 204(4) Cr.P.C. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed u/s.204(4) Cr.P.C.” 5. Though exercise of power under section 204(4) Cr.P.C., is discretionary, the same is to be properly exercised. This Court is of the view that in circumstances where the complainant regularly has been before it, the Court below, in the least, should have required him to take out necessary process on the very date rather than dismissing the case. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore, passed in C.C.No.133 of 2011 on 02.02.2012, shall stand set aside. The revision petitioner shall now take fresh process against the accused persons within a period of three days of the receipt of this order. This order is limited only to the issue discussed herein. It has no bearing upon the merits of the case.