Former Chennai police commissioner A Arun named accused in Veeramani POCSO case, with six other officers

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the sexual abuse of minors by Chennai granite businessman R Veeramani has named former Greater Chennai Police Commissioner A Arun and six other police personnel as accused, accusing them of failing to act on evidence of child abuse that had been handed to the police. The officers have been added to the SIT’s first FIR, according to police sources and reports published on Friday, November 13.

The step follows the SIT’s first chargesheet in the case. A 720-page final report citing 40 witnesses was submitted on November 11 to the Special Court for exclusive trial of POCSO cases at the Madras High Court campus. It names Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites, and his two car drivers, Parthiban and Babu, within 46 days of the case being registered on September 27.

What the chargesheet alleges

The case is built on a complaint by the mother of a 14-year-old girl from a Scheduled Caste family. Investigators allege that Veeramani sexually abused the girl, and that the two drivers took her to his residence while knowing what would happen there. All three face provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The chargesheet also cites Indian Penal Code sections 366 and 506(2), which deal with abduction and criminal intimidation.

The seven police personnel are accused of a different failure. Under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which punishes a failure to report or record a case of child sexual abuse, and under Sections 199, 235 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which cover disobeying a legal direction, false evidence and making evidence disappear, they are alleged to have held information and evidence and not conducted a proper inquiry. That, the SIT says, led to a closure report before the special court earlier this year. Only one of the six others has been named in reports so far: M A Yasmin, a former assistant commissioner in the Anti-Vice Squad.

N Kannan, who was Additional Commissioner of Police (South) at the time and is now an inspector general, is not among the accused. Police sources say his role was limited to receiving the complaint and forwarding it to the commissioner.

How the case got here

The trail goes back to November 21, 2024, when Congress MP Ranjan Kumar says he complained to the then Additional Commissioner of Police (South) and shared video clips with the Anti-Vice Squad. No FIR was registered. Kannan has confirmed that he escalated the complaint to Arun.

An FIR was finally registered on October 7, 2025, after a child rights activist brought a pen drive to the Anti-Vice Squad. In February 2026 the police filed a closure report, saying the minor in the footage could not be identified. The special court rejected it and asked how the police could say they had not established the crime scene when a video was available. The case was reopened in July, after the court ordered further investigation.

Police then recovered the original visuals from a digital device at an aide’s home. Veeramani and two others were arrested on August 29, on allegations that they handled or destroyed evidence. The girl was identified, and more survivors came forward. The Director General of Police constituted the SIT on September 24, under the supervision of the Greater Chennai Police Commissioner. It has since registered seven more cases involving nine minor survivors, on complaints from the children or their mothers. Eight associates of Veeramani have been arrested, and a blue corner notice has been issued for an absconding accused, Prakash Kannaiah.

In court

The Madras High Court has been monitoring the investigation. Justice V Lakshminarayanan, hearing a petition by journalist Varaaki, who had asked for a CBI probe citing alleged involvement of senior officials, noted substantial progress and ordered the SIT’s status report to be kept in a sealed cover. The court had earlier refused to hand the case to the CBI and gave the SIT time to collect evidence. State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan told the bench that two more chargesheets will be filed within 10 days and that the SIT is examining the officers’ role in the closure report. The hearing was adjourned to November 30.

The bench also asked why the SIT had not held a press briefing. The prosecutor said sensitive information could be made public; the SIT has said it will brief the media after the remaining chargesheets are filed.

Separately, Archana Veeramani has asked the High Court to quash the summons the SIT issued to her. That plea is listed for November 17.

Why it matters

The naming of a former city police chief puts the police’s own handling of a child abuse complaint under the same scrutiny as the abuse itself. The POCSO Act places a legal duty on anyone with knowledge of such an offence to report it, and Section 21 is the provision that enforces it. The case will test how far the accountability extends up the chain: the SIT’s inquiry into the seven officers is still on, and no one outside the accused list has been charged.

For the families of the nine survivors, the immediate question is the pace of the trial. The special court will now take up the first chargesheet, and the further chargesheets promised by the State will decide whether the other cases proceed together.

The allegations against all the accused are those in the chargesheet and the SIT’s report; none has been proved in court. Reactions from Arun and Yasmin had not been reported when this story was published.

What happens next

The Madras High Court hears Archana Veeramani’s plea on November 17 and the main matter on November 30. The SIT is due to file two more chargesheets within 10 days and to continue its inquiry into the seven police personnel.