Continuous and consensual sex between two adults cannot be considered as Rape

Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that admittedly the victim and petitioner are major and they are Central Government employees. The petitioner is working as Superintendent of Central GST, West Commissionerate, Banashankari, Bangalore and the victim is working at the Office of the Central GST, East Commissionerate, Domlur, Bangalore. The introduction of the victim and the petitioner was in the year 2013 and the sexual assault started in the year 2014 at Bangalore. Thereafter till 2018 it was continued in Shivamogga and other various places. But the victim had not complained against the petitioner for having sexual abuse on her earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court and relied upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. and in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA in respect of the principles for granting Anticipatory Bail. He also submitted that wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the very victim on 31.01.2019 at Kodigehalli Police Station. The victim was summoned by the police and she has given statement to the police she has never stated anything about sexual harassment on her by the petitioner and she gave a reply on 01.02.2019. The petitioner has also given a complaint to the Commercial Street Police on 30.10.2020 for making false allegations on him that he has cheated an amount even though the amount was refunded.[Para No.7]

    On perusal of the records, admittedly the petitioner alleged to have been sexually assault on the victim, of course with consent as both of them are major and officers of the Central Government. Though the victim came to know about the marital status of the petitioner before 2018 itself, but no complaint has been lodged by her either for cheating or for sexual assault on her. Even in the complaint she has stated that she has filed complaint against one Anthony Raj for sexual assault on her in the working place. On enquiry also she has stated that she has not lodged any complaint against this petitioner through out 2014 to 2018. On perusal of entire records, it appears, both, the petitioner and victim had sexual affairs with consent and it cannot be considered as rape as per the decision of Section 375 of the IPC

when both adults having continuous consensual sex which cannot be considered as Rape. This Court will not going to the other contention regarding sexual assault on the woman in work place and conducting an Departmental enquiry. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Journalist Varun Hiremath vs. State of Delhi, where the Supreme Court has held that if the man and woman are in room, man makes a request and woman complies and it is stated no need to say anything more and for cancellation of the bail granted to the journalist has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.[Para No.8]

After lapse of previous rent agreement if fresh rent agreement is not created, then the landlord can recover last payable rent but not the enhanced rent

The finding by both the learned Courts below on issue no.3 has been taken up for examination. In this regard, at the outset it must be seen that how far the Agreement for House Rent dated 29.02.2000 (Ext.3, also marked as Ext.D) can be read to determine the quantum of monthly rent for which the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2 had committed default, if there be any. In this regard, as per the provisions of Section 17(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 it is provided that leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent is required to be compulsorily registered. The consequences of non registration is prescribed in Section 49(c) of the said Act, which provides that no document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. However, as per the proviso appended thereto, such document may be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Therefore, when both the Courts below were examining the issue of rent payable after 01.03.2003, there was no written agreement in existence commencing from 01.03.2003. However, the rent payable during the tenure of the agreement was the purpose of agreement, as such, for the purpose of the quantum of the

rent payable for the period commencing from 01.03.2003 onwards, the said rent agreement (Ext.3, also exhibited as Ext.D) cannot be read in evidence. After 28.02.2003, the petitioner and respondent no.2 were holding the status of statutory tenant. In view of the discussions above, the evidence to the effect that as per the terms of Ext.3/Ext.D, the rent last payable under the said agreement was Rs.2,640/- per month.[Para No.22]