Can court ask police to file charge-sheet under 156(3)

Relate with your matter.

Otherwise your own very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in criminal matters and having successful track record ….. and worth his/her salt …must have already satisfied you…..

e.g;

that you can move protest petition

if magistrate is satisfied that report of IO is erroneous and sufficient evidence is available then magistrate can summon the accused.

Magistrate may agree if more witnesses are required

GO nthru;

Supreme Court of India

Vasanti Dubey vs State Of M.P 

3. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case to be related hereinafter, the question inter alia which falls for determination by this Court is whether the Magistrate/Special Judge could straightway direct for submission of charge-sheet in case he refused to accept final report/closure report of the police/investigating agency and thereafter direct the police to submit charge-sheet in case he was of the opinion that the case was not fit to be closed and it required to be proceeded further. The question which also requires consideration is whether the Special Judge could refuse to accept closure report and direct reinvestigation of the case for the second time in order to proceed further although he was confronted with the legal impediment indicating lack of sanction for prosecution in the matter.

4. However, the question for determination is not a new or an extra-ordinary one as the question has cropped up time and again before this Court as to what course is left open for a Magistrate in a situation when the police submits final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. or closure report is 

 submitted by any other investigating agency stating that the case is not made out on account of lack of evidence or for any other reason.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182028646/

and

The position in this way is that the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of quashing of the summoning order under section 354 I.P.C. only. The rest of the summoning order passed by the Magistrate in respect of the remaining offences is valid . 
Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr. P. C. is partly allowed only to the extent it relates to quashing of the summoning order under section 354 I.P.C. and the summoning order to that extent is quashed. The remaining portion of the summoning order passed by the Magistrate is valid and is maintained. The accused are, however, allowed one month's time to appear before the Magistrate and during this period the execution of non bailable warrant against the accused applicant shall remain stayed so as to enable him to appear before the court concerned. The accused applicant, after putting in appearance before the court, may apply for bail and their bail application shall be decided by the Courts expeditiously, if possible on the same day, taking into consideration the directions of this Court in the case of Amrawati Devi Vs. State of U. P. [2004(ACJ) 1846]. 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Reserved: 

Criminal Misc. Application No. 11893 of 2004 
Shiv Narain Jaiswal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 

https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

and

The position in the present case is that the learned Magistrate was of the view that the police had not actually investigated the case . He has pointed out in his order dated 23.12.04 that the I.O. had no recorded statement of Jakkhoo and Nargis and had recorded their fictitious statements. Under these circumstances, when all other witnesses from the side of the complainant namely Jakkhoo, Nargis, Om Prakash , Atmaram and Subhash had denied the factum of settlement of marriage of the complainant's son with the daughter of the accused no. 1 and 2, there was no sufficient evidence in the case diary to summon the accused . Under these circumstances, the proper course for the Magistrate was to send back the case to the I.O. for further investigation or in the alternative he could also pass an order for registration of the case under section 190 Cr.P.C. and then to take statements of complainant and other witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He did not do so, and in view of aforesaid ,the order dated 23.12.04 passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused can not be upheld and the same deserves to be set aside. 
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 23.12.04 passed by the learned Magistrate under section 420 I.P.C. in complaint case no. 274 of 2004 pending before the C.J.M. Varanasi, is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate, after looking into the record, may exercise its discretion either by sending back the case to the police for further investigation or he may, in the alternative , after taking cognizance under section 190 Cr.P.C. , proceed to take additional statement of the witnesses under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and then he may pass a suitable order in the matter. 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Reserved: 

Criminal Misc. Application No. 7259 of 2005 

Aun Mohammad Naqvi alias Siddan and another 

Vs 

State of U.P. and another 

https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

Thanks a lot Mr Kumar Doab. 

With your reply I could get that magistrate can not order police to file charge sheet.

The best way out is to act under 200/202 and take action against police separately.