When the child‑sex‑abuse case involving R. Veeramani, owner of Gem Granites, first entered the public domain, police officials said they became aware of the allegations only in October 2025. A senior Tamil Nadu Congress leader, MP R. Kumar, says that narrative is inaccurate. Kumar, who heads the party’s Scheduled Caste Department, told TNM that he lodged a formal complaint with the Chennai police in November 2024, a full year before the police claim to have received any evidence.
Early complaint and police interaction
According to Kumar, the matter first reached him in 2024. He approached the then Additional Commissioner of Police (South), N. Kannan, requesting an appointment to submit a complaint against Veeramani. Kumar shared screenshots of a chat dated 20 November 2024 in which he asked for a meeting. The exchange does not name Veeramani, but the following day Kumar was asked to appear at 12.30 pm.
“I got an appointment with Additional Commissioner Kannan. I went there,” Kumar recounted. He said that ten days after the meeting, Inspector Mahesh of the Anti‑Vice Squad (AVS) met him at the Ashoka Hotel in Chennai to obtain details of the case. Mahesh later messaged Kumar, asking him to forward newspaper clippings for further enquiry.
Kumar also met the then AVS Assistant Commissioner Yasmin at the old commissioner’s office in Egmore. Yasmin later became the investigating officer in October 2025 and filed the final report that led to the case’s closure.
How the evidence was obtained
Kumar says the visual evidence that later appeared on a pen drive was first shown to him by Shanthi Mahendran, the wife of Mahendra Simhan, managing director of Gem Software Solutions and a long‑time associate of Veeramani. Kumar first spoke with Shanthi over the phone in June or July 2024 about a land dispute, but did not meet her in person until later.
During a visit to Shanthi’s house, Kumar alleges she invited him into a room, offered him bajjis, and turned on a television that displayed a video allegedly recorded by her husband to track her movements. Shanthi reportedly said, “Watch this. If you see this, you’ll understand. My husband suspected me and Veeramani. So he installed a video set‑up to track us.” Kumar recorded the footage on his phone, consulted a lawyer, and filed a written complaint on 21 November 2024.
The complaint named Shanthi Mahendran as a friend of Veeramani and alleged that she had brought several minor girls, aged around 14‑15, from oppressed and marginalised communities to her home. It claimed the video showed Veeramani keeping the minors in a bedroom, offering them chocolates and sexually abusing them. Kumar said he submitted the complaint to the police and that the police “went back and forth for months without taking any action.” He added that his political position in the DMK‑Congress alliance and his expectation of an assembly seat at the time may have influenced the police’s inaction.
Police version and subsequent developments
Police officials maintain that they first learned of the alleged abuse in October 2025, when a child‑rights activist approached the AVS on 6 October 2025 with a pen drive containing a video purportedly showing a minor being assaulted. The activist identified Veeramani as the man in the footage and said the location was linked to Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan. An FIR was registered on 7 October 2025.
The police report noted that the video bore a 2019 CCTV timestamp. Veeramani, Shanthi and Mahendra were questioned but denied the accusations. Investigators reportedly struggled to locate or identify the girl seen in the video.
In February 2026, the AVS submitted a closure report to the Special POCSO Court, stating that the girl could not be identified, the original recording could not be recovered, and there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The court rejected the closure report, ordering further investigation and questioning how the police could not establish a crime scene when a video existed.
The case was reopened in July 2026. A search of Mahendra Simhan’s residence in Teynampet later recovered what police described as the original visuals on a digital device, along with signs of an attempt to destroy evidence. The seized devices were sent for forensic analysis.
On 29 August 2026, Chennai police arrested Veeramani, Shanthi Mahendran and Mahendra Simhan, remanding them in judicial custody. Authorities allege that Shanthi and Mahendra facilitated the offences and were involved in handling or destroying the evidence.
Contrasting accounts and unanswered questions
When TNM contacted Additional Commissioner Kannan to confirm whether Kumar had presented a complaint in November 2024, Kannan initially said he could not recall. He later affirmed that he had received a complaint from Kumar, noting that “since children were involved, I considered it a sensitive matter and escalated it to the Commissioner.” Kannan added that the then Commissioner of Police A. Arun was briefed, and that the case fell under the Central Crime Branch rather than his own jurisdiction.
Former Commissioner A. Arun, when approached for comment, redirected inquiries to the current commissioner, describing the matter as a “sensitive POCSO case.”
Kumar’s statements raise several points of contention. He insists that he provided the police with a detailed, authentic complaint a year before the activist’s pen‑drive submission, naming both Veeramani and Shanthi explicitly. He also questions why the police later claimed they could not identify Veeramani, when his complaint already did so.
The discrepancy between the two timelines—Kumar’s November 2024 filing and the police’s October 2025 claim—remains unresolved. The ongoing investigation, now under judicial scrutiny, will likely examine the earlier complaint, the chain of custody of the video evidence, and the reasons for the police’s delayed action.
R. Veeramani, a lawyer‑trained entrepreneur, founded GEM Granites in 1972 and expanded the business internationally. The allegations, if proven, could have significant ramifications for the granite industry and for political actors who have interacted with the case.
As the Special POCSO Court continues to oversee the investigation, the focus shifts to forensic findings from the devices seized at Mahendra Simhan’s home and to any further testimony from the complainant, the activist, and other witnesses. The outcome will determine whether the early complaint filed by a Congress MP will be recognized as a pivotal piece of evidence or remain a contested claim in a high‑profile child‑abuse case.
Be First to Comment