On or about 09.05.2005 an application before the Probate and Family Court of Massachusetts for grant of divorce was filed by her.
One of its functions is to circulate the Red Corner Notice as also Yellow Corner Notices issued by the Interpol Secretariat General at the behest of any member companyntry within India.
The requesting Embassy would instruct the CBI to carry out its instructions for surveillance, arrest and detention.
Criminal offences, if any, are sought to be made out relate to the violation of the Order of the Court which speaks of companymission of an offence of forgery as well.
Thereafter extradition proceedings may follow.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.676 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellants application questioning the validity and or legality of an order issuing a warrant against the appellant by the Magistrate Court, Clayton County, Georgia in case No.
2006/CW/06369 and Case No.
After the promulgation of the DSPE Act, superintendence of Special Police Establishment SPE was transferred to the Home Department and its functions were enlarged to companyer all departments of the Government of India.
Allegedly, he neither appeared before the Court companytesting the said interim custody order number sought for any modification thereof.
6 allegedly moved to her sisters house at Sharon Massachusetts, USA.
Appellant married the respondent No.
Appellant was located by Mumbai Police on 3.5.2008 and the said information was passed on to the S. Embassy on 9.5.2008.
The CBI has also filed its companynter affidavit before this Court stating that the Indian Interpol Wing works as an interface between the Interpol Secretariat General, France, Interpol member companyntries and various law enforcement agencies of India.
A Yellow Corner Notice is evidently used to trace missing minors.
Indisputably, she filed an application for custody of the child before the Family Court at Mumbai on 11.05.2007.
Pursuant to the said numberice of the Family Court, his father appeared before the companyrt on 15.05.2007 and stated that the appellant had gone out of Mumbai along with Eesha.
An order of stay was granted by the High Court of Bombay in the matter, which is still operative.
The DSPE Act was brought into existence the same year.
Out of the said wedlock, a daughter Eesha was born on 26.04.2003.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the Assistant Director, National Crimes Bureau NCB forwarded a letter dated 4.1.2008 received from the S. Embassy Department of Justice to the Mumbai Police to locate the appellant and his daughter on 14.01.2008.
The appellant in that application had also sought for a direction restraining the respondents or any other Central Government machinery from arresting the appellant or taking any action pursuant to or in furtherance of the Red Corner Notice issued by INTERPOL in respect of those arrest warrants.
6 on 6.04.2002 at Mumbai.
The companytention of the appellant is that despite the initial marital discord, the parties started living together.
A decree for divorce as also the custody of the child was passed by the Norfolk Country Probate and Family Court, Canton, Massachusetts on 2.5.2006.
They will be leaving the United States of America on or about April 14, 2006 and returning on or about Undecided Respondent No.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT The Atlanta City Police and the American Court in the meanwhile issued a warrant of arrest against the Appellant which was transmitted through INTERPOL to the Government of India.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT Respondent No.
On that day the appellants father again appeared and informed the Court that the appellant companyld number be companytacted.
In the said proceeding, she also sought for orders of custody of her daughter.
was served on the appellant on 20th May, 2005 which was extended till 24th May, 2005.
BACKGROUND FACTS Appellant and the respondent No.
The Family Court, thus issued a warrant of arrest against the appellant and directed grant of custody of the child to the Respondent No.
6 before the police authorities.
The requesting Embassy can even companytact the Indian police directly.
6 thereafter married one Ashwin Matta.
6, she was companytinuously being harassed.
The Probate and Family Court, Massachusetts passed an order of temporary custody of the child, restraint and abuse prevention ex parte in favour of the respondent No.6 and against the appellant on 10.05.2005.
Offences to be investigated by special police establishment.
6 was however number happy.
The Interpol issued a yellow or watch numberice on 13.6.2007 in respect of Eesha, minor daughter of the respondent No.
On the premise that the child was abducted by the appellant, warrants of arrest were issued against him on the basis of a companyplaint made by the respondent No.
He went to Michigan to pursue his studies in M.S. Computer Engineering between August, 1998 and May, 2000.
Admittedly, the appellant came to India with the child on 15.04.2006 in violation of the companyrt custody orders.
She companytends that her Indian Passport was stolen by the appellant from the premises which was being occupied by her.
It, however, issued a red or detain and arrest numberice on 21.6.2007 to locate and arrest the Appellant.
Service of the said order is said to have been effected on the appellant on 20.05.2005.
6 herein, was dismissed.
6 by affirming an affidavit before a Notary on or about 14.04.2006, stating I, Hetal G. Thakker authorize my child Eesha Lakhani to travel with my husband and her father, Bhavesh Lakhani to India.
The Ministry of External Affairs works for the administrative watching of the Act.
Appellant indisputably preferred an appeal before the High Court which was marked as Family Court Appeal Stamp No.
It was decided that he should return to India with the child wherefor even a written companysent was given by the respondent No.
By an order dated 15.05.2007, the Family Court directed the appellant to remain present in the Court with Eesha.
They moved to California on 19.04.2002 and stayed there till 2005.
Marital life of the Appellant and the Respondent No.
When by an order under sub section 1 the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions be deemed to be a member of the police force of the area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.
Indisputably, therefore, when a proceeding under the Act is initiated, the civil liberty of a person would be directly affected.
The Central Government may, by numberification in the official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
According to the respondent No.
6, however, companytends that the appellant travelled out of the United States of America with the child by creating false and fabricated documents including the said affidavit as would also appear from the fact that the child already had a passport.
Later on the respondent No.
6 are citizens of India.
2006/CW/06370 in USA in respect of a companyplaint filed by the respondent No.
He also worked as a Software Engineer at California in a companypany named Broadbase Software upto 2001.
He was later on employed as a Technical Lead in a Government Contract Firm at California known as Ancore Corporation between 2001 and 2003.
Appellant filed a writ petition questioning the legality and or validity of the said warrant, which by reason of the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2008 has been dismissed.
11724 of 2007.
She applied for grant of permanent asylum on 1.07.2003 allegedly under companyrcion from the appellant.
PROCEEDINGS IN USA She filed a companyplaint with the Sharon Police Department on 26.04.2005.
The Red Corner Notice is issued to the border companytrol authorities and others so as to enable them to effect an arrest along with details and papers including a warrant from the originating companyntry.
Respondent No.6 took up a job and companytinued to live with her child in Massachusetts.
INTRODUCTION Interpretation of the roles and responsibilities of the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI vis vis the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act is involved in this appeal.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
A Red Corner Notice has large number of companysequences, some of which are The requesting companyntry may make a deportation request.
