Even after an FIR was registered in October 2025 over allegations of sexual abuse of a minor girl, Shanthi, who was named in connection with the case, continued to post dance videos on Instagram as though nothing had happened.
On 7 October 2025, the Chennai police registered a case following a complaint submitted to the Anti-Vice Squad along with video evidence purportedly showing granite businessman Gem Veeramani sexually assaulting a minor girl at a residence associated with his friend Shanthi in Teynampet.
Yet, on 16 October 2025, just days after the FIR, Shanthi appeared on Instagram dancing to songs and recording videos to post them on Instagram.
The social-media activity continued even as police were investigating allegations involving Veeramani, Shanthi, her husband Mahendra Simhan and others.
The case has since taken a different turn. More than 90 days after registering the FIR, police filed a closure report, stating that they had been unable to trace the minor girl seen in the video. Veeramani had reportedly denied that he was the man seen in the footage, while Shanthi allegedly claimed that the house shown in the video was not hers.
The closure report was subsequently rejected by the Special Court for POCSO cases in Chennai. District Judge Padma ordered a fresh and rigorous investigation and directed the police to submit a report within four weeks.
The renewed investigation eventually resulted in the arrests of Veeramani, Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan. Police also arrested Ganesan, who had worked as Veeramani’s assistant for 23 years, in connection with possession of the video.
How The Pen Drive Reached The Police
Questions had earlier emerged over who had submitted the complaint, who handed over the pen drive and what exactly the complaint contained.
According to details surrounding the original complaint, Praveena Solomon, identified as the District Coordinator of ICWO in Anna Nagar, Chennai, and Hariharan, the organisation’s president, approached Yasmin, the Assistant Commissioner of the Anti-Vice Squad in Egmore.
ICWO was described as an organisation involved in the protection of women and children, prevention of child sexual abuse, rescue operations and rehabilitation of victims.
According to the complaint, an unidentified person visited the ICWO office on October 6, 2025, handed over an envelope containing information and a pen drive and left.
When the contents of the pen drive were examined, it allegedly showed a man sexually assaulting a girl who appeared to be a minor in a private room.
The accompanying information allegedly identified the man as Veeramani, whose address was given as Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai, and claimed that the incident had taken place in the bedroom of his close friend Shanthi, who lived in the TTK Road area of Teynampet.
The complaint stated that the organisation had received the video and written information and was submitting both to the police for further action.
An FIR was registered on October 7, 2025, on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner Yasmin.
Veeramani And Shanthi Named, But Initial Investigation Did Not Lead To Arrests
Although Veeramani and Shanthi were named in the FIR, the initial investigation did not result in their arrest.
Police questioned Veeramani, Shanthi, Mahendra Simhan and other staff members. According to the material surrounding the case, those questioned denied knowledge of the alleged incident and reportedly claimed that the video mentioned in the complaint dated back to 2019.
Veeramani also denied that he was the person seen in the video, while Shanthi reportedly denied that the house shown in the footage belonged to her.
The investigation subsequently failed to locate the minor girl seen in the footage.
More than 90 days after the FIR was registered, police filed a closure report stating that the minor could not be traced. The report also cited Veeramani’s denial that he was present in the video and Shanthi’s claim that the house shown in the footage was not hers.
Court Rejects Closure Report
The closure report, however, did not end the matter.
The Special Court for POCSO cases in Chennai rejected the police report and directed a fresh investigation into the case. District Judge Padma ordered the police to conduct a rigorous investigation and submit a report within four weeks.
Following the change in government and the appointment of Amalraj as Chennai City Police Commissioner, the case reportedly saw renewed action.
The fresh investigation eventually led to the arrests of Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan, who were accused of assisting Veeramani, as well as Veeramani himself.
Allegations Against Shanthi And Mahendra Simhan
The renewed investigation also brought the alleged role of Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan under greater scrutiny.
It has been alleged that the couple assisted Veeramani by bringing women and young girls to premises used by him, where sexual offences were allegedly committed.
Mahendra Simhan has been described as having served as Managing Director of Gem Software Solutions, a company associated with the Gem group.
The material surrounding the case further alleges that Shanthi and Mahendra had been seeking a long-term financial settlement from Veeramani.
According to these allegations, the couple had obtained CCTV footage in 2019 showing Veeramani engaging in sexual activity with a girl and subsequently used the footage to pressure him for a settlement.
It is alleged that Veeramani did not agree to the settlement and instead made smaller payments over time.
It is further alleged that Shanthi and Mahendra, dissatisfied with the arrangement, began approaching political contacts to mediate the dispute.
Alleged Political Mediation
The material surrounding the case also contains allegations of attempts to use political connections to mediate the dispute.
It has been alleged that Shanthi, after an incident in which women and children were allegedly brought to Veeramani’s bungalow in the Thousand Lights area and the premises were vandalised, approached a Congress leader from the same constituency.
According to the allegations, when Veeramani was approached for mediation, he subsequently contacted a leader of a caste-based political party from the southern districts who operated within the same circles.
The southern leader is alleged to have held discussions with a local Congress functionary from the Thousand Lights area.
However, according to reports, no agreement was reached between the parties.
While these alleged negotiations were taking place, the video evidence reportedly reached ICWO through another source.
It was subsequently submitted to the Anti-Vice Squad along with the complaint on 7 October 2025.
The alleged political mediation and settlement attempts have not been established as facts and form part of the broader allegations surrounding the case.
Questions Over The Video And Its Source
The case has also raised questions over the origins of the video itself.
Investigators are examining who recorded the footage, who first possessed it, how it reached the unidentified person who handed it to ICWO and how the pen drive eventually reached the police.
Questions have also been raised over whether the digital evidence could have been subjected to forensic examination to establish the identity of the man shown in the footage, particularly after Veeramani denied being the person depicted.
Similarly, the failure to trace the minor during the initial investigation has come under scrutiny.
Questions have been raised as to whether Shanthi, who was alleged to have been an accomplice, could have provided information about the location and identity of the girl had she been subjected to a more detailed interrogation.
Ganesan Arrested Over Possession Of Video
The investigation later expanded to individuals who allegedly possessed information or copies of the video.
Ganesan, who had worked as an assistant to Veeramani for 23 years, was arrested after police allegedly found the video in his possession.
Investigators are examining how Ganesan obtained the footage and why he allegedly failed to report it to the police.
SRMU Leader Kannaiah’s Son Prakash Summoned
Police have also been examining the alleged involvement of Prakash, the son of Kannaiah, a Southern Railway union official.
According to the allegations, Prakash was connected to the matter and the Chennai police issued him a summons to appear for questioning. But he is reported to be abroad.
Probe Widens To Other Victims
The investigation has also moved beyond the minor girl seen in the original video.
Police have reportedly identified the girl and recorded her statement before a magistrate. Investigators are also examining allegations involving other girls who may have been subjected to sexual abuse.
Reports have indicated that several other alleged victims have come forward, prompting police to examine whether the alleged offences extended beyond the incident depicted in the original video.
The investigation is therefore looking not only at the original footage but also at the broader allegations concerning Veeramani, Shanthi, Mahendra Simhan and others.
Why Was The Anti-Prostitution Squad Handling The Complaint?
Another question emerging from the case concerns the handling of the original complaint.
The complaint concerned alleged sexual abuse of a minor and was accompanied by video evidence which falls under POCSO. Yet the complaint was handled by the Anti-Prostitution Squad.
The circumstances under which the complaint was received, investigated and subsequently taken towards closure are now being examined.
Investigators are also looking into allegations that attempts were made to suppress or bury the complaint and whether any political or financial influence affected the initial course of the investigation.
Shanthi’s Public Conduct Draws Outrage
Amid the investigation, Shanthi’s social media activity has drawn significant attention. On 16 October 2025, she posted dance videos of herself appearing casual and unbothered. She has since released multiple other dance reels on Instagram, which have gone viral and sparked public anger.
Unanswered Questions and Ongoing Investigation
Several questions remain unanswered. Who was the volunteer who filed the initial complaint? Who handed over the pen drive? What exactly did the complaint contain? And why did the Anti-Vice Squad handle a POCSO complaint?
Authorities are also investigating why the complaint was allegedly allowed to languish. If Shanthi, an alleged accomplice, had been properly interrogated, the minor victim might have been located. If Veeramani denies being in the video, forensic examination of the digital footage could resolve the question. Additionally, the chain of custody regarding the pen drive could have been easily traced.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
