The story so far: On August 29, 2026, the Greater Chennai Police arrested well known industrialist R. Veeramani (84), a pioneer in the granite business and founder of GEM Group of Companies, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on charges of sexually assaulting minor girls over a period of time. The police also arrested his suspected accomplices Shanthi (60) and her husband Mahendra Simhan (63) – the latter a senior employee of GEM Group. On October 1, 2026, the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police Amalraj issued an order detaining the trio under the Goondas Act.
Who lodged the complaint, as per police records?
According to a police press note, on October 6, 2025, a volunteer of a Chennai-based NGO lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Immoral Trafficking Prevention Unit (ITPU), Greater Chennai Police. The complainant said a man had visited her office and handed over a pen drive, claiming it contained video recordings of Veeramani sexually abusing a minor girl at Shanthi’s house in Chennai.
What did the police do?
On October 7, 2025, as per instructions of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB), a case was registered under the POCSO Act by Gayathri, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Chennai CCB. Two days later, the case was transferred to Yasmin, the ACP, ITPU, Chennai, on October 9 for further investigation.
Thereafter, the complainant’s statement was recorded before the Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Saidapet. Police claimed they were unable to identify the man, who had handed over the pen drive, as CCTVs were not operational in the vicinity of the NGO’s office. The police searched the bungalow but no evidence related to the case was found. The police said the recording in the pen drive revealed the alleged sexual abuse incident had taken place in 2019. When the DVR at the bungalow was inspected with the assistance of an authorised Cyber Expert, no foundational recordings of any kind were revealed. “Consequently, the copy of the evidence received along with the complaint could not be matched/verified,” it said.
Later, police summoned and questioned Veeramani and Shanthi. Veeramani claimed the man in the video was not him and he did not know the girl either. Shanthi said the location shown in the video was not a part of her house and she never allowed strangers into the home. The domestic helps in her house too endorsed this claim.
Police said a man, who runs a tyre puncture repair shop near the house, also told them outsiders were not allowed into the house. Besides, a staff of an eye hospital in the vicinity maintained the same.
The police said they were unable to gather any further information about the person appearing in the video. They checked the CCTNS portal to see if the suspects mentioned in the complaint had any previous involvement in any cases. It revealed they had no such history.
Submission of police report
Due to the inability to define any age-related information regarding the girl, the police concluded there was no prima facie ground to investigate and take the case forward. Hence, on February 18, 2026, they informed the complainant of their decision to recommend “Further Action Dropped.”
In the final report filed before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for the POCSO Act cases at the Madras High Court campus, Ms. Yasmin said: “I wish to state that if any evidence or witnesses are obtained in this regard in the future, action will be taken in accordance with the aforementioned [High] court order [dated November 25, 2025].”
What did the court do?
After the final report was filed in the court, the case was pending for nearly four months. When it came up for hearing on June 19, 2026, the police’s counsel sought an adjournment. However, the judge declined and noted: “The final report not accepted. Further investigation ordered and report within four weeks.”
What happened after court’s refusal to accept police’s final report?
The police reopened the investigation and methodically pursued it on the instructions of Greater Chennai Police Commissioner A Amalraj. This time, the investigation revealed Veeramani had rented an independent bungalow in Teynampet and allowed Shanthi and her husband to stay there. Multiple minor girls were brought to the house where they were allegedly lured with gifts and subjected to sexual abuse by Veeramani. On August 29, 2026, the police arrested Veeramani, Shanthi and her husband and lodged them at the Central Prison, Puzhal.
Police said they had recovered several important pieces of evidence, including photographs of minor girls and other women allegedly connected with the incidents.
In second week of September, the minor girl who was in the video was traced and identified by the police. More than 10 girls, who were allegedly sexually abused, have testified to the police about the crime.
The police have since interrogated Veeramani, Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan after taking them in custody for three days each. Investigators are also examining allegations that large sums of money were transferred by Veeramani and his associates to certain persons to facilitate him to wriggle out of the case. The police are scrutinising the financial trail and property transactions involving Veeramani and his associates. A property transaction involving around ₹70 crore is among those being examined.
Who are the other accused?
On September 22, 2026, police arrested a fourth accused Ganesan, who had worked in Gem Group for 23 years, on charges of storing on his mobile phone a video of Veeramani abusing a girl and not reporting it to police.
Besides, a look out circular has been issued against one Prakash who is being probed in connection with certain financial transactions linked to the crime.
Why have two senior IPS officers been put on compulsory wait?
On September 24, 2026, The Hindu in an exclusive report brought to light that M.P. Ranjan Kumar, president of the Scheduled Caste department of the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee, had on November 22, 2024 itself filed a complaint with a senior officer of the Chennai police accusing Veeramani and Shanthi of involvement in sexually abusing minor girls.
This contradicted the police’s claim that the first complaint in the case was filed only on October 6, 2025. Thereafter, the Home Secretary issued an order putting on compulsory wait two senior IPS officers – A. Arun (former Commissioner, Greater Chennai Police) and N. Kannan (former Additional Commissioner, GCP).
Who is investigating the case now?
Director General of Police Mahesh Kumar Agarwal formed a Special Investigation Team to investigate the case. The SIT is headed by three senior IPS officers and an officer in the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. They are: P.C. Thenmozhi, Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, Disha Mittal, Joint Commissioner of Police, J. Mutharasi, Superintendent of Police/Media Relation Officer and V.V. Geethanjali, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime against Women and Children, Greater Chennai Police.
Are there any fresh cases against the accused?
On September 28, 2026, based on a complaint submitted by the affected minor girl’s mother before the Special Investigation Team, another case was registered under the relevant provisions of law. The complainant alleged her minor daughter ended her life in 2016 because of Veeramani’s act.
How have the police facilitated filing of complaints?
The police have urged those desirous to lodge complaints in connection with the cases against Veeramani, or anyone possessing information, facts, documents or other relevant details relating to the cases, to pass on the information directly or through WhatsApp at 9345319676. The identity of those providing information will be kept confidential. All information received will be verified and immediate action will be taken.
Published – October 02, 2026 05:00 pm IST
