Khurda Sessions Court Upholds Dismissal of Complaint Against Naveen Patnaik Over Alleged Funds Misuse

The Sessions Judge at Khurda, Bhubaneswar, has dismissed a criminal revision filed by Sudhir Charan Mohanty, an advocate and social worker, challenging the magistrate's order that threw out his complaint against former Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and his then-Private Secretary V. Karthikeyan Pandian. The court found the complaint lacked both substantive evidence and procedural compliance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Allegations of Helicopter Trips and Fund Misuse

The petitioner alleged that the two opposite parties misappropriated over ₹500 crore of public money, using the funds to finance more than 300 helicopter trips across the state for public meetings and campaigns. He claimed to have obtained this information through RTI applications filed by social workers, who were cited as witnesses. When the Capital Police Station refused to register his FIR on August 14, 2024, he submitted a second complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) on August 19, 2024. After the DCP also failed to act, he filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Bhubaneswar, which was dismissed on March 25, 2026.

Two-Fold Grounds for Dismissal

The SDJM rejected the complaint on two primary grounds: first, that the allegations were omnibus and lacked substance, and second, that the complainant had not complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. That provision requires a person aggrieved by a police station's refusal to register an FIR to send the substance of the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police. The magistrate found that the complainant had merely handed over a cryptic letter to the DCP's office, without the original FIR details and without using registered post.

Senior Advocate Ashok Parija, representing the opposite parties, argued that the petitioner's letter to the DCP was not only procedurally deficient but also contradicted the earlier FIR and the complaint petition. He cited the Supreme Court's decision in Priti Agarwalla & Ors. v. State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors. (2024) to argue that a magistrate must first satisfy itself that the complaint makes out a cognizable offence before sending it for investigation under Section 175(3) of BNSS.

No Scrap of Paper to Support Allegations

The Sessions Judge, Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, conducted a detailed examination of the three documents — the original FIR, the letter to the DCP, and the complaint petition. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed "a single scrap of paper or information" from his RTI witnesses to establish a prima facie case. The allegations, the court noted, were broad and unsupported by any material evidence linking the opposite parties to the specific penal offences invoked, including Sections 420, 406, 467 IPC and corresponding provisions of the BNS .

"Therefore, this Court, after a close scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as in his earlier reports dated 14.08.2024 & 19.08.2024, does not find any prima facie material about commission of any cognizable offence , and more precisely the offences alleged against the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 in the complaint petition," the judge wrote.

Procedural Lapses and Locus Standi Issues

The court further found that the petitioner had not complied with Section 173(4) BNSS, which mandates sending the information by post to the Superintendent of Police. The letter delivered to the DCP's office lacked authenticity, as it bore no official seal or identity of the receiving officer. The judge also noted that the petitioner, though a member of the public, could not maintain the complaint under Section 33 of BNSS, as the offences alleged did not fall within the limited list of cognizable offences for which such a complaint was permissible.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • "This Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint/petitioner neither made out any case under any of the penal sections referred to in the complaint petition with supported materials nor adhered to the mandatory compliance of Section 173(4) of BNSS, 2023 before presenting the complaint nor he had got any locus-standi to present the complaint in terms of Section 33 of BNSS , 2023 ."

  • "The complainant/petitioner did not file a single scrap of paper or information, which he had collected from his witnesses to prima facie assess the commission of any cognizable offence and more so about the involvement of the O.P.Nos.1 & 2 in commission of the offences alleged."

  • "That apart, Section 173(4) of BNSS mandates that the report must be sent to the Superintendent of Police/DCP by post. In the present case, the report dated 14.08.2024 or even 19.08.2024 was not sent by the petitioner to the DCP, Bhubaneswar by post, rather it was stated to have delivered at the Office of the DCP, Bhubaneswar."

Final Decision

Finding no illegality in the SDJM's order, the Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision. The court directed that the trial court records be sent back along with the order. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict procedural compliance under the BNSS and the need for substantive material to support allegations of criminal misconduct against public figures.