JUDGMENT R.A. Mishra, J. - List revised. No one is appearing for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed with the prayer that the order dated 18.9.1981 passed by the court below be quashed. 2. It so appears that the respondent flied a complaint against the petitioners under Sections 504, 506, 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and perusino the F.I.R. arrived at the conclusion that there was sufficient material for proceeding against the petitioners under Sections 504, 506, 426 I.P.C. He, therefore, directed that special summons be issued against the petitioners under Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the order dated 18.9.81 are perfectly justified and I see no reason in the least to interfere with the observations made by the Court below in this paragraphs but paragraph 2 of the order is somewhat confusing and not happily worded. 3. Paragraph 2 of the order reads as below: "Under Section 206 Cr.P.C. provisionally considering them guilty. I order them to pay/remit a fine of Rs. 25.00 each with a plea of guilty. Fine if realised, Rs. 50.00 shall be paid to the complainant." 4. Section 206 Cr.P.C. does not empower the Magistrate to hold the accused guilty even provisionally and direct him to pay or remit a fine. It simply mandates the Magistrate to issue special summons to the accused where the Magistrate takes cognizance of a petty offence and empowers him to require the accused to appear in person or by a pleader on a specified date, or if he desire to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the Magistrate, to transmit before the specified date, by post or by messenger to the Magistrate, the said plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons or if he desires to appear by pleader and to plead guilty to the charge through such pleader, to authorise in writing, the pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through pleader. This provision has been made for the convenience of the accused in the petty offences. As observed above the provision does not empower the Magistrate to hold the accused provisionally guilty of the offence and direct him to pay the fine. This provision has been made for the convenience of the accused in the petty offences. As observed above the provision does not empower the Magistrate to hold the accused provisionally guilty of the offence and direct him to pay the fine. Magistrate has to give the option as laid down in the Section to the accused to plead guilty and pay or remit the fine. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order dated 18.9.81 is, therefore, quashed as it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, miscarriage of justice and is contrary to the provision of Section 206 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Paragraph 2 of the order dated 18.9.81 is hereby quashed. The Magistrate may, however, issue special summons to the petitioners under Section 206 Cr.P.C. if he so desires or if the petitioners have put in their appearance, they may still avail of the option given under Section 206 Cr.P.C. 6. With these observations the petition stands partly allowed. The stay order stands vacated. The court below to proceed with the matter in the light of the observations and directions given above.