Court Dismisses Revision Petition Against Naveen Patnaik and VK Pandian

Bhubaneswar, September 3: The sessions court in Khurda has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against Odisha’s former Chief Minister and opposition leader Naveen Patnaik, along with his close associate and former bureaucrat VK Pandian.

The petition alleged misuse of government funds. Sudhir Charan Mohanty, a lawyer and social activist from Bhubaneswar, challenged a March 25, 2026 order from the SDJM court, which had rejected his complaint against Patnaik and Pandian.

Mohanty reported that he filed an FIR at the Capital Police Station in Bhubaneswar on August 14, 2024. In his complaint, he accused both Pandian and Patnaik of undertaking several helicopter trips across all districts of Odisha without any approval or payment from the state treasury.

Citing information obtained through an RTI, he further alleged that the expenses for these trips were covered by mining owners, land mafias, real estate operators, non-Odia contractors, and other undisclosed sources of money. Mohanty also claimed that the inspector in charge at the Capital Police Station did not register the FIR until August 19, 2024.

Subsequently, he reportedly submitted a written FIR to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) in Bhubaneswar, which was accepted by their office. Despite this, no FIR was registered against Pandian and Patnaik.

Following this, Mohanty filed a CC case under various sections of the IPC, which was later dismissed by the SDJM court in Bhubaneswar. After his complaint was rejected, he approached a higher court against the SDJM’s order.

Meanwhile, the sessions court judge in Khurda found no illegality in the order passed by the SDJM court on March 25, 2026. Judge Biranchi Narayan Mohanty stated, “Considering the above discussion, this court concludes that the petitioner has neither presented evidence to substantiate any penal sections mentioned in the complaint petition nor complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 173(4) of BNS, 2023 before filing the complaint. Furthermore, they lacked legal standing to file the complaint under Section 33 of BNS, 2023.”

–