Did the Chennai Police have access to potentially incriminating video evidence nearly 11 months before the FIR was registered in the alleged child sexual abuse case involving granite businessman R Veeramani?
Congress functionary Ranjan Kumar told NDTV that he had alerted the police as early as November 24, 2024, through a written complaint against Veeramani
NDTV spoke to Hariharan, who confirmed that someone had given his organisation a pen drive along with a note. And if such evidence was available, why was no FIR registered or attempt made to identify the alleged survivors during that period? NDTV’s investigation raises questions over the sequence in which two videos reached the police – and whether the first, potentially stronger piece of evidence was acted upon? He also believed the girls could be from Scheduled Caste communities. He also explained that he had received the material from Shanthi, who has since been arrested in connection with the case. A second video was submitted to the police by activist Hariharan, founder of the Indian Community Welfare Organisation. But he was not arrested at that stage. The explanation was that the evidence was not considered strong enough for an arrest. Was the first video, if it was indeed available to the police, ever used by anyone to threaten or blackmail those connected to the case? Former Chief Minister MK Stalin, who held the police portfolio when both pieces of evidence were allegedly brought to the police, has denied any attempt to cover up the case or protect anyone. He has maintained that his government ensured arrests, filing of chargesheets and conviction of perpetrators in crimes against girls and women. It has to establish what the police knew, when they knew it, what evidence they received, who handled that evidence and what action – if any – was taken on it. It must also establish whether the first video was investigated, preserved and acted upon, and why the later video became the basis for registration of the FIR.
The present investigation therefore has to go beyond the question of who was eventually arrested. Veeramani, 84, is the founder of GEM Granites and the wider GEM Group of Companies, a prominent Chennai-based business figure. He was arrested on August 29 along with his associates Mahendra Simhan and Shanthi, who are accused of facilitating the alleged offences at a rented house in Teynampet. Congress functionary Ranjan Kumar told NDTV that he had alerted the police as early as November 24, 2024, through a written complaint. Kumar says he personally met Additional Commissioner Dr Kannan on November 22, 2024 and handed over the written complaint. If that sequence is established, it raises a fundamental question: Did the Chennai Police have potentially strong digital evidence naming the alleged perpetrator as early as 2024? Despite that, an FIR was registered on October 7, 2025, and Veeramani was named as an accused. That creates the central investigative question: If the police had already received a video in 2024 in which, according to Ranjan Kumar, the alleged perpetrator could be identified, why did the police proceed on the basis of the later, unclear video – and why was the earlier material deemed insufficient to trigger an FIR or a wider investigation? Is the reported ₹90 crore money trail that police are now examining connected to alleged attempts to influence or suppress the case?
He says he specifically recorded in the complaint that he was in possession of a video. The video clearly showed the identity of the alleged perpetrator, whom he identified as Veeramani, allegedly abusing minor girls, according to Kumar. Kumar says he provided the police with the address linked to the allegations. But he says the identity of the alleged perpetrator was not clear from this video and that the footage was dark.
R Veeramani Sexual Abuse Case: Video In 2024, FIR In 2025 – Why Did Cops Wait 11 Months?
Sources have confirmed that Dr Kannan forwarded the complaint to the then Chennai Police Commissioner Arun, as he believed the nature of the case required specialised investigation. The POCSO court subsequently intervened, preventing the case from being closed and directing further investigation. That intervention ultimately ensured that the allegations continued to be investigated. Vijay has been targeting MK Stalin over delay in case The handling of the case has also become a political issue. And if the allegations surrounding the money trail are established, investigators will have to determine whether there was any connection between money, alleged blackmail or extortion and the handling of the case.
Because the case, at one stage, was headed towards closure, the role of the police is particularly significant. The questions now before the Special Investigation Team are therefore wider than the original allegation. There was also no known attempt during those nearly 11 months to identify the alleged survivors.
The Anti-Vice Squad Inspector Mahesh subsequently contacted Kumar and obtained the video, according to Kumar’s account. Read | High Court Bars Airing Of Videos, Audios From R Veeramani Sexual Abuse Case Yet, according to the information available, no FIR followed at that stage. Read | “Stalin Sir, Open Your Mouth”: Vijay Attacks DMK In R Veeramani Sexual Abuse Case And was there any attempt to close the case as part of such a deal?
