Video in 2024, FIR in 2025: Questions Mount Over Delay in Veeramani POCSO Case

A gap of eleven months

New details have emerged about the sequence of events in the child sexual abuse case involving granite businessman R Veeramani, raising questions about why the Chennai Police did not register a First Information Report for nearly eleven months despite allegedly receiving video evidence.

Veeramani, 84, is the founder of GEM Granites and the wider GEM Group of Companies. 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.

The first complaint and video

Congress functionary Ranjan Kumar has said he alerted the police as early as November 24, 2024, through a written complaint. He claims he met Additional Commissioner Dr Kannan on November 22, 2024, and handed over the complaint, specifically recording that he possessed a video.

According to Kumar, the video clearly showed the identity of the alleged perpetrator, whom he identified as Veeramani, allegedly abusing minor girls. He also believed the girls could be from Scheduled Caste communities. Kumar says he received the material from Shanthi, who has since been arrested in connection with the case, and provided the police with the address linked to the allegations.

Sources have confirmed that Dr Kannan forwarded the complaint to the then Chennai Police Commissioner Arun, believing the case required specialised investigation. The Anti-Vice Squad Inspector Mahesh subsequently contacted Kumar and obtained the video, according to Kumar's account.

Yet no FIR followed at that stage, and there was no known attempt during those nearly eleven months to identify the alleged survivors.

A second video and the FIR

A second video was submitted to the police by activist Hariharan, founder of the Indian Community Welfare Organisation, on October 6, 2025. Hariharan has confirmed that someone gave his organisation a pen drive along with a note, but the identity of the alleged perpetrator was not clear from the footage, which was dark.

Despite this, an FIR was registered on October 7, 2025, naming Veeramani as an accused. He was not arrested at that stage, with the explanation that the evidence was not considered strong enough for an arrest.

This has led to a central investigative question: if the police had already received a video in 2024 in which the alleged perpetrator could be identified, why did they 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?

Wider questions and political fallout

The handling of the case has also become a political issue. 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.

The case, at one stage, was headed towards closure. The POCSO court subsequently intervened, preventing it from being closed and directing further investigation.

Further questions remain: was the first video, if available to the police, ever used to threaten or blackmail anyone connected to the case? Is the reported ₹90 crore money trail that police are now examining connected to alleged attempts to influence or suppress the case? And was there any attempt to close the case as part of such a deal?

The Special Investigation Team now faces questions that go beyond the original allegation — whether evidence was suppressed, whether anyone was blackmailed or extorted, and whether money was used to influence the case.