Odisha Court Upholds Dismissal Of Complaint Against Ex-CM Naveen Patnaik & Former Secretary Over 'Misuse Of Public Funds' For Helicopter Trips
An Odisha Court upheld a magistrate's order dismissing a case against former CM and Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Supremo Naveen Patnaik and his then Private Secretary as well as '5T' Secretary V. Karthikeyan Pandian over alleged 300+ helicopter trips to different districts for meetings and campaigns, without sanction of funds from the government exchequer.
While deciding the revision petition, Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar found lack of substance to proceed ahead with the complaint. In the words of the Judge–
“…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 petitioner Sudhir Charan Mohanty, a social worker and an Advocate by profession, alleged that the former Chief Minister and his Private Secretary (the 'opposite parties') misappropriated more than Rs. 500 crores which was revealed from a number RTI applications made by some social workers, who were cited as witnesses in the complaint case. It was his further allegation that they used this money to make helicopter trips to different districts for public meetings.
Accordingly, he presented a written complaint before the Capital Police Station, Bhubaneswar on 14.08.2024. Since the police refused to register the FIR, he sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar (DCP). When the DCP also did not take any action, he filed a complaint case before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar (SDJM). The SDJM, however, dismissed the case primarily on two grounds, i.e. non-compliance of Section 173(4) of the BNSS and omnibus nature of the complaint bereft of any substance.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed this revision petition under Section 438(1), BNSS before the Sessions Judge. Senior Advocate Ashok Parija, appearing for the opposite parties, argued that the petitioner/complainant was required to send exact FIR copy, which he had presented before the Capital Police Station, to the DCP. However, he submitted a cryptic letter to the DCP without the copy of the original FIR, which does not amount to compliance of Section 173(4), BNSS.
Section 173(4) BNSS reads as follows–
“Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate.”
The Court perused the three documents, i.e. FIR submitted before the police station, letter sent to DCP and the complaint. It was observed that the three of them raised different allegations and the letter sent to the DCP seemed to contain omnibus allegations. Further, the Sessions Judge pointed out another procedural flaw in sending the substance of FIR to the DCP.
“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. The petitioner has failed to authenticate the receipt of his report dated 19.08.2024 at the Office of DCP, Bhubaneswar.”
Placing reliance upon Priti Agarwalla & Ors. v. State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 394, the Court held the Magistrate, before sending the complaint for its registration and investigation by the local police in terms of Section 175(3) of BNSS, is required to satisfy himself whether the complaint makes out a cognizable offence or not. In this case, the Court said, the petitioner did not even file a “scrap of paper” to substantiate his allegations. It also held that he has no locus standi to file complaint even under Section 33, BNSS.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Magistrate was upheld in revision.
Case Title: Sudhir Charan Mohanty v. Sri Vairab Karthikeyan Pandian & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 171 of 2026
Date of Order: September 02, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Nayak, Advocate along with Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Ashok Parija, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.M. Dwibedy, Advocate & Associates