For decades, R. Veeramani, 84, known as ‘Gem Granite’ Veeramani, was celebrated as one of the architects of India’s granite industry. He helped build the sector’s institutional framework, headed industry bodies, and was honoured by the Union government for his contribution to granite mining and marketing. He was also known for his philanthropic activities.
Veeramani, a lawyer, entered the natural stone industry by chance and went on to become one of its pioneers. He built a multi-crore business and carefully cultivated a social circle that included politicians, celebrities, and other public figures. There seemed to have been another side to him though. Today, the Greater Chennai Police are investigating charges that he has sexually assaulted minor girls. The case took a dramatic turn after a Special Court for POCSO Act cases last month rejected an earlier police report seeking to close the investigation and ordered further inquiries.
Origin of the case
The case originated with a complaint filed by a child rights activist of an NGO based at Anna Nagar, Chennai, with the Inspector of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Unit (ITPU) on October 6, 2025.
The complaint was forwarded by the then Additional Commissioner of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) for further action. The following day, the CCB registered a case under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and it was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of the ITPU on October 9.
According to the complaint, while the activist was at her office, an unidentified person handed over a cover containing a message and a pen drive. A man (later identified as Veeramani) was seen hugging a minor girl, touching her inappropriately, and sexually abusing her on a bed at a house belonging to Shanthi, described as his associate.
The police officer who initially investigated the case found that a search of the house mentioned in the complaint or shown in the video reportedly did not yield any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of persons named in the complaint.
On February 20, 2026, the Assistant Commissioner, ITPU, filed a report before the court recommending that further action be dropped. According to the report, the video appeared to show an incident that had taken place in 2019.
The police examined a digital video recorder (DVR) from the suspected location with the assistance of an authorised cyber-forensic expert. However, the investigators said they could not recover the original recording or any other relevant footage from the device.
The earlier report cited several difficulties, including the police’s inability to identify the girl in the video, the absence of usable CCTV footage, and the lack of statements from Shanthi’s neighbours. It also stated that the cyber-forensic expert could not retrieve the original recording from the DVR because approximately six years had passed since the alleged incident.
During the inquiry, Veeramani and Shanthi were questioned. Veeramani denied that he was the person seen in the video and said he did not know the person who appeared in the footage with a girl who seemed to be a minor. Shanthi, on the other hand, said she knew Veeramani but did not know the girl. She also stated that the location shown in the footage was not part of her house.
The report stated that the age and identity of the person resembling a minor in the video could not be established and there were no grounds to proceed further at that stage. The case was therefore classified as ‘Further Action Dropped’ and the report was submitted to the court. The police added that further action would be taken if new evidence or witnesses emerged.
However, the Special Court rejected the report and ordered further investigation, following which the inquiry was reopened in July 2026. During the fresh inquiry, the police searched Shanthi’s residence at Teynampet and recovered what they described as the original footage of the alleged sexual assault from an electronic device, a letter said to be written by Shanthi, and mobile records. Investigators also found indications of an attempt to destroy evidence. The seized devices were sent for forensic examination.
In a statement issued on August 29, the Greater Chennai Police said the person seen in the video stored on the pen drive had been identified as Veeramani. They added that Veeramani had rented a house at Teynampet and entrusted its management to Shanthi and her husband Mahendran Simhan. Investigators alleged that several minor girls had been brought to the house and sexually assaulted. The police also said video evidence relating to one such incident had been seized.
During the searches of the homes and offices of suspected individuals, the police recovered evidence, including photographs of minor girls connected with the incidents. Shanthi, 55, Mahendran Simhan, 60, and Veeramani were arrested and remanded in judicial custody. The police alleged that Shanthi and her husband had assisted in the offences. The investigation continued. A senior police officer said Shanthi’s alleged role could be broadly compared with that of Ghislaine Maxwell (in Jeffrey Epstein’s case), who was convicted for facilitating the sexual abuse of minors.
Victim identified
Last week, the police investigating the POCSO Act case identified the minor girl allegedly assaulted by Veeramani. She was 12 years old at the time of the alleged incident. The survivor’s statement was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. She identified herself and Veeramani in the video.
The police subsequently traced and identified three more victims, all of whom were aged 12-15 at the time of the incidents. Sources said more victims came forward to record their statements on the assaults by the prime accused after being assured that their identities would be kept secret.
Greater Chennai Police Commissioner A. Amalraj said, “We strictly follow the guidelines while handling such cases. Tracing the victims took time, and the investigation is being conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law. After conducting a thorough investigation, we will file a charge sheet in time and get conviction.”
During the investigation, the police also unearthed the case of suicide of a minor girl in early 2003, linked to Veeramani. Shanthi’s message to Veeramani stated that a child had ended her life because of him.
Minors targeted
A senior police officer said Veeramani had targeted girls aged 12-16 over several years. The officer said he lured children by offering small amounts of money, sports shoes, chocolates, and mobile phones.
Sources said Veeramani encouraged children to enter the premises of his bungalow as he remained in the portico, pretending to play ball. The children used to pick up balls tossed around. He used to give them chocolates and eatables when they entered his premises but targetted only the girls for exploitation. He would pick the targets, ask their names, and give them his phone number, saying that they could approach him for any assistance, including financial help. If they contacted him, he would reportedly send a driver to bring them to the bungalow. He would take them to his bedroom and the victims were then sexually assaulted. He had given them amounts ranging from ₹2,000 to ₹5,000. If a victim complained that it was too low, the payment was increased, in some instances to ₹50,000. Sometimes, he gave the girls mobile phones or sports shoes. The officer also alleged that Veeramani invited children to parties at hotels, transported them in luxury cars, and then sexually assaulted them. This went on for years.
Back entrance and secret room
Police sources further said the victims had identified the back entrance, the bedroom of his bungalow, and the secret room in his office. An officer also said Shanthi had claimed she was raped by Veeramani when she was 13 and she had a son from him. Police sources said she was seeking a share of Veeramani’s property. They also said Shanthi was trained as an architect and was now running a dance school. She and her husband had served as directors of a company owned by Veeramani and were on his payroll.
When contacted, there was no response from Veeramani’s side to the allegations against him. Police sources said the investigation had only begun and they suspect more revelations would emerge.
Dismissing allegations that the investigation had been subverted last year, a senior officer who had earlier served in the Commissionerate said, “We registered the case immediately after receiving the video. There was no laxity in the investigation. Since the visuals were unclear, we could not identify the victim. Without identifying the victim, we could not proceed further, but we did not close the case. Had we identified the victim, we would have taken the investigation forward.”
It is learnt that a report on the status of the case was filed in February to comply with the prescribed legal time frame. The report did not seek closure of the case. The officer said the case was kept open, with the provision that the investigation could be revived if any fresh evidence emerged.
(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416, and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)
