Constitutional Law – Right to Marry – Petitioners married without the consent of the woman's family – Woman's father filed a missing person complaint – Police demanded the woman to appear at the police station despite her informing them of her marriage and feeling threatened – Supreme Court held that the consent of family or community is not required once two adults agree to marry – Right to marry is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution – Police conduct in pressuring the petitioners was inappropriate – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-14].

Individual Autonomy – Dignity and Choice – Court emphasized that individual choice is central to dignity – Consent of the family or community is secondary to the consent of the individuals involved – Autonomy in marriage is part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty [Paras 9-11].

Police Conduct – Counseling and Guidelines – Court criticized the police for their handling of the case – Directed counseling for the investigating officer and suggested training programs for police on handling such socially sensitive cases – Police should lay down guidelines for managing similar cases in the future [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Proceedings from FIR No. 226/2020 quashed – Police directed to establish training programs and guidelines for handling cases involving marriage against family wishes – Hope expressed for family reconciliation [Paras 14-15].

Constitutional Law – Right to Salary and Pension – COVID-19 pandemic led to financial crisis in Andhra Pradesh – State deferred payment of salaries and pensions – High Court ordered payment with 12% interest – Supreme Court upheld the payment of deferred salaries and pensions but scaled down interest to 6% – Salaries and pensions are rightful entitlements for services rendered and past service, respectively [Paras 1-16].

State Financial Crisis – Deferment of Payments – State's revenue significantly declined due to the pandemic – Government issued orders for deferment, later providing some relaxations – High Court directed payment of deferred amounts, recognizing the financial difficulties but emphasizing lawful entitlement to salaries and pensions [Paras 2-10].

Interest on Deferred Payments – Rate Reduction – While acknowledging the State's financial situation, Supreme Court held that interest should not be punitive – Interest rate reduced from 12% to 6% per annum, applicable to specified categories and all pensioners [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Deferred salaries and pensions to be paid with 6% interest within thirty days – High Court’s interest rate of 12% reduced – No order as to costs [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Bank Manager charged with sanctioning and disbursing loans irregularly without following due procedure – Misappropriation and disbursing loans to units without business, multiple loans to family members – Enquiry Officer found charges proved – Disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement, accepted by appellate authority and upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Enquiry and Punishment – Disciplinary authority can tentatively decide on punishment based on Enquiry Officer’s report and indicate proposed punishment in show cause notice – Copy of enquiry report must be provided – No requirement for detailed reasons if disciplinary authority accepts enquiry findings – Proper procedure followed, punishment based on findings [Paras 7-8].

Proportionality of Punishment – Seriousness of Charges – Bank manager’s role critical in handling public money, requires adherence to procedural guidelines – Misconduct grave and serious – Compulsory retirement not disproportionate given the gravity of charges and appellant’s admissions – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Punishment of compulsory retirement affirmed as proportionate and justified based on proven misconduct.

Civil Law – Suit for Injunction – Plaintiff sought injunction to prevent defendants from disturbing possession – Defendants contested, claiming title and possession – Trial court granted injunction based on plaintiff’s possession – First Appellate Court reversed, questioning validity of power of attorney and sale deed – High Court restored trial court’s decree, noting plaintiff’s possession and defendants’ failure in previous litigation for declaration and possession – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s view that plaintiff’s suit for injunction was maintainable without declaration of title due to established possession and prior litigation outcomes [Paras 1-27].

Possession and Title – Principle – Possession is valid against all except the true owner – Plaintiff in possession can seek injunction even if title is disputed, provided plaintiff does not elaborate on title dispute in the plaint and fails to seek declaration of title – Previous litigation outcomes impact current claims [Paras 21-23].

Legal Precedents – Applicability – Previous judgments support the principle that possession can lead to injunction without title declaration if certain conditions are met – Relevant cases include Nagar Palika Jind vs. Jagat Singh Advocate, Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust vs. Khariati Lal, and Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander [Paras 18-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Plaintiff entitled to injunction based on possession and prior litigation results – Plaintiff not required to prove title for injunction in this specific case.

Service Law – Recruitment – Government of Maharashtra issued requisition for LDCE to fill 828 vacancies for Police Sub-Inspector – Later decided to accommodate additional 636 candidates without consulting MPSC – Tribunal vacated interim order of status quo, which was challenged in High Court – High Court directed training of additional candidates – Supreme Court held that filling vacancies beyond the notified number violates Articles 14 and 16 (1) – Government's decision stayed during pendency of proceedings [Paras 1-21].

Consultation with MPSC – Article 320(3)(a) – State Government must consult MPSC for recruitment to civil services – Government acted unilaterally without MPSC consultation, violating constitutional and statutory provisions – Rule 5 of Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 requires prior consultation with MPSC for altering recruitment ratio [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Review – Interim Orders – Tribunal’s grounds for vacating interim status quo were erroneous – Promotional prospects of petitioners would be seriously prejudiced – High Court's direction to send additional candidates for training during pendency of proceedings was improper [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Government Resolution dated 22.04.2019 stayed during pendency of proceedings before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal – Tribunal directed to decide pending applications within six months, ensuring notice to additional candidates – High Court and Tribunal orders vacating interim status quo set aside [Paras 20-21].

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – Rule 12(4) – Encroachment and Regularization – Petitioners encroached upon Panchayat land and sought regularization under Rule 12(4) – Competent authority and High Court found illegal occupation exceeding 200 square yards – Regularization limited to 200 square yards, inclusive of constructed and open space – Petitioners not entitled to benefit of Rule 12(4) [Paras 1-10].

Encroachment Policy – Compliance with Rules – Petitioners in illegal occupation must meet conditions for regularization – Regularization only permissible if occupation does not exceed 200 square yards – Supreme Court emphasizes strict adherence to conditions stipulated in Rule 12(4) – Illegal occupation exceeding stipulated area cannot be regularized [Paras 6-8].

Illegal Encroachments – Public Interest – Supreme Court refers to Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab – Emphasizes eviction of unauthorized occupants from Gram Panchayat land for common use – Illegal constructions must be removed, and land restored to Panchayat – Regularization of such encroachments not permitted unless under exceptional circumstances [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioners’ illegal occupation exceeds permissible limit – Competent authority and High Court decisions upheld – No grounds for regularization under Rule 12(4) – Land must be restored to Panchayat for public use [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Quashing of FIR – Appellant sought quashing of FIR for kidnapping of a minor girl – Prosecutrix and complainant did not level allegations against the appellant – Main accused married the prosecutrix and had children with her – High Court dismissed appellant’s petition – Supreme Court held continuation of proceedings against appellant as abuse of process of law – Quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings [Paras 1-11].

Abuse of Process – Lack of Evidence – No allegations or evidence against appellant in the statements of prosecutrix and complainant – Main accused acquitted by trial court due to lack of evidence on prosecutrix's age and her voluntary actions – Supreme Court found proceedings against appellant untenable and quashed them [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's dismissal of petition set aside – FIR No. 31 of 2013 and charge sheet against appellant quashed [Para 11].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Acquittal – Appellant accused of demanding and accepting Rs. 500 and a cell phone as illegal gratification – Trial court acquitted the appellant citing lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – High Court reversed acquittal without adequate reasons – Supreme Court held that the mere recovery of money is not sufficient to constitute the offense without proof of demand and acceptance – Acquittal by trial court deemed a possible view based on evidence – Conviction by High Court set aside [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Evaluation – Demand and Acceptance – Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential – Mere possession of currency notes without proof of demand does not constitute an offense under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act – Presumption under Section 20 can only be drawn on proof of demand and acceptance [Paras 9-12].

Appellate Review – Acquittal – High Court can interfere with acquittal only if the trial court's view is not a possible view – Supreme Court emphasized that trial court’s acquittal should not be reversed unless it is found that the view taken is unreasonable or perverse [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's conviction reversed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed immediate release of the appellant from custody unless required in connection with any other case [Para 14].

Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Due Process – Appellant challenged the freezing of bank accounts by the Enforcement Directorate – Supreme Court held that the procedure under Section 17 of PMLA must be followed strictly – Freezing of accounts without following due process deemed unsustainable – Court directed defreezing of accounts to enable statutory payments by the appellant – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-18].

Statutory Compliance – Freezing Orders – Section 17 of PMLA requires reasons to be recorded in writing by the Authorised Officer – A copy of reasons must be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope – Officer must file an application before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days of freezing or seizure – Compliance with these procedures is mandatory for the validity of freezing orders [Paras 8-11].

Legal Principle – Adherence to Statutory Process – Actions under special enactments like PMLA must strictly follow the procedures outlined – Deviations or non-compliance render actions void – Established principle that statutory tasks must be performed as prescribed by the statute [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Freezing orders quashed for non-compliance with Section 17 of PMLA – Directed defreezing of accounts to facilitate statutory payments – Respondent given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if needed [Paras 17-18].