One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
Arjun Mehta, a 24-year-old software professional from Pune, was going through a routine evening in late February 2025 when the incident happened. He was searching for general adult health information online and accidentally misspelled a common term related to human anatomy. Google immediately displayed a prominent caution banner stating that child sexual abuse material is illegal and directing users to report any such content to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
Arjun panicked. He hadn't intentionally searched for anything involving minors. No history of accessing illegal content. But that warning screen shook him badly, and honestly, I've seen this reaction dozens of times. He first spoke with a local lawyer in his area who, while reassuring in tone, had limited familiarity with cyber law matters and the specific mechanics of how search engine warning systems work under Indian digital frameworks. That consultation left Arjun more confused than before.
He then approached Advocate Sudhir Rao's office in early March 2025. After a careful review of the facts, the browser history context, and the nature of the Google SafeSearch warning mechanism, the matter was assessed thoroughly. The specialised approach, grounded in specific knowledge of India's cyber law provisions and how investigative agencies actually treat such accidental search triggers, gave Arjun clarity, a documented record of intent, and a concrete action plan. He hadn't committed any offence. And once that was established with precision, his anxiety resolved entirely.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Don't delete your browser history: This sounds counterintuitive. But deleting history after receiving such a warning can look suspicious if an inquiry ever arises. Keep your search history intact. It documents what you actually typed and establishes the accidental nature of the search. Frankly, this is the one mistake people make in a panic, and it's the worst possible move.
Avoid discussing this on social media: Don't post about the incident on any platform, even anonymously. Public statements can complicate matters unnecessarily and attract unwanted attention.
Understand what the warning actually is: Google's caution banner is an automated public awareness tool. It's not an FIR. It's not a police action. It's not a government notice. It fires based on keyword triggers to alert users about the law. Receiving it is not itself evidence of wrongdoing.
This category of matter sits at the intersection of cyber law, constitutional rights, and evidentiary procedure. Advocates who regularly handle cyber and digital offence cases are far better placed to assess risk, document intent, and advise correctly than general practitioners who simply won't be familiar with how these warning systems function legally.
Applicable Sections of Law
The following statutory provisions are relevant to situations involving alleged access to or search for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in India:
- Section 67B, Information Technology Act, 2000: Specifically penalises publishing, transmitting, browsing, or downloading child sexually abusive material in electronic form. This is the primary provision that Google's warning references.
- Section 15, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Penalises storage of child pornographic material, even without intent to distribute, under certain conditions.
- Section 316(2) BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Relates to criminal acts involving obscene material in digital and electronic form.
- Section 94 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita): Governs summons and production of documents during an investigation, including digital records and device data.
Punishment and Penalties
- Section 67B IT Act: First conviction — imprisonment up to five years and fine up to ten lakh rupees. Second or subsequent conviction — imprisonment up to seven years and fine up to ten lakh rupees.
- Section 15 POCSO Act: Storage of CSAM with intent — imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both. Without intent to distribute but failing to delete — fine up to five thousand rupees.
- Nature of offence: Cognizable and non-bailable under Section 67B IT Act. Non-compoundable.
- Key point: Mere receipt of an automated Google warning, with no actual access to illegal content, does not constitute an offence under any of these provisions.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
Cyber offences under the IT Act and POCSO are handled by designated Cyber Crime Police Stations. In Maharashtra, complaints go to the Cyber Crime Cell under the Commissioner of Police jurisdiction. The Special Court under POCSO has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under that Act. Territorial jurisdiction attaches where the digital act originated, where the device was located, or where the victim (in cases with an identifiable victim) resides. And here's the thing — getting jurisdiction right from the start matters, because filing in the wrong forum can delay proceedings significantly and weaken the evidentiary record.
What if Police Refuse to File FIR?
In cases where a complaint is filed and police are reluctant to act, the following steps apply:
- Approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Commissioner with a written complaint under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking direction to register the FIR.
- File a private complaint directly before the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, attaching all supporting documents and digital evidence.
- If the Magistrate takes cognizance, police are directed to investigate regardless of their initial refusal.
- As a last resort, file a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to register the FIR and investigate.
Rights of the Accused
If you ever find yourself under investigation or arrest in such a matter, these rights protect you:
- Right against self-incrimination: Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of an offence can be compelled to be a witness against themselves. You're not required to unlock your device or disclose passwords under compulsion.
- Right to legal representation: Article 22 guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of your choice from the moment of arrest.
- Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours: Section 58 BNSS mandates this. Any delay is a fundamental rights violation.
- Right to know grounds of arrest: Section 47 BNSS requires police to inform the arrested person of the reasons for arrest in writing.
- Right to a copy of the FIR: Under Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, 2014 (Supreme Court), the FIR must be made available to the accused.
Bail Provisions
Offences under Section 67B IT Act are non-bailable. That means bail isn't a right; it's at the court's discretion. But here's how it works in practice:
- Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS: If there is apprehension of arrest, an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court or High Court can be filed before any arrest is made.
- Regular bail under Section 480/483 BNSS: Available after arrest, before the Magistrate or Sessions Court depending on the stage of proceedings.
- Bail strategy: In accidental search cases with no actual CSAM access, a strong affidavit supported by browser metadata, device forensics, and absence of any download activity significantly strengthens the bail application.
Quashing of FIR / Case
If an FIR is registered despite the accidental and non-criminal nature of the search, quashing before the High Court is a viable and often effective route. Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court exercises inherent powers to quash an FIR where no prima facie offence is disclosed. In accidental search situations, where forensic evidence shows no download, no access to illegal material, and no intent, the FIR may be quashed on the ground that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process. The Supreme Court's reasoning in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (SC) remains the leading framework for FIR quashing grounds.
If You Are the Victim
This section applies if you've genuinely encountered CSAM online and want to report it:
- File a complaint immediately at cybercrime.gov.in, the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Do not share, forward, or save the material. Doing so could itself attract liability under Section 67B IT Act.
- Preserve the URL, screenshot the warning screen (without the actual illegal content), and note the time and date of the encounter.
- Approach the nearest Cyber Crime Police Station with your complaint in writing, supported by the preserved digital record.
- Consult a lawyer before speaking in detail to police, so your statement is accurate and doesn't inadvertently implicate you.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity proof)
- Screenshot of the Google caution warning you received (with timestamp visible)
- Browser history export or screenshot showing the search query and the accidental misspelling
- Device details — make, model, IMEI number
- Internet service provider details and account information
- Any prior communications or search history showing the legitimate research context
- Affidavit of facts, drafted and notarised with legal assistance
What Evidence Is Required?
- Browser history data: Primary evidence showing what was actually searched and when — including the misspelled query and the absence of any click on illegal links.
- Device forensics report: A forensic examination confirming no CSAM was downloaded, stored, or accessed on the device.
- ISP/network logs: Traffic logs from the service provider confirm no illegal content was accessed at the network level.
- Google SafeSearch mechanism documentation: Technical explanation of how automated keyword-triggered warnings work, showing the warning was algorithmic, not complaint-based.
- Affidavit of the user: A sworn statement explaining the context and accidental nature of the search.
- No prior record certificate: From local police, establishing absence of any criminal history.
How the Police Behave in Such Cases
Make no mistake — cyber crime units in major cities like Pune, Bengaluru, or Hyderabad are better equipped than general police stations, but their initial response to any CSAM-adjacent complaint can be aggressive. Police may seize devices without delay under Section 94 BNSS. They'll ask probing questions about browsing habits. In accidental search cases, the challenge is that the initial inquiry can feel intimidating even when no offence has occurred. Now, before you act, understand this clearly: having a lawyer present from the first interaction with police isn't optional here. It's essential.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Day 1-7: Incident occurs, Google warning received. Consult a lawyer immediately. Preserve all digital evidence.
- Week 1-2: If police inquiry initiated, lawyer accompanies client. Device may be taken for forensic examination.
- Week 2-6: Forensic report generated by cyber forensics lab. Usually takes 3-6 weeks depending on workload.
- Week 6-10: If no FIR registered and forensics are clean, matter typically closes at this stage.
- If FIR filed: Anticipatory bail application (Sessions Court/High Court) within days of learning of FIR.
- Chargesheet stage (if it reaches that far): Police have 60-90 days under BNSS to file chargesheet. If forensics are clean, chargesheet is unlikely.
- Quashing petition: Filed before High Court if FIR is registered despite lack of evidence. Hearing typically within 4-8 weeks.
- Disposal: In a clean accidental search case, resolution before trial is the realistic and achievable outcome.
How Long Will the Investigation Take?
In cyber cases under the IT Act, police have up to 60 days to file a chargesheet if the accused is in custody, and 90 days otherwise, under BNSS provisions. Forensic examination of a device typically takes four to eight weeks at a government cyber forensics lab. If the examination shows no illegal content was accessed or stored, the investigation is likely to close without a chargesheet. The entire process from incident to closure, in an accidental search scenario, often resolves within two to four months. So don't catastrophise. That said, don't delay getting legal help either.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India