Salman Khan, Alvira Khan Get Pre-Cognisance Notice in Being Human Jewellery Dispute; What the ₹3 Crore Case Actually Alleges

Salman Khan, his sister Alvira Khan Agnihotri and other parties linked to a Being Human jewellery franchise dispute have been issued notices by a Chandigarh court, reviving a business complaint that first became public more than five years ago.

The latest development needs careful legal wording.

According to legal-news outlet LiveLaw, Judicial Magistrate Dr Ambika Sharma issued pre-cognisance notices under the proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), with the matter listed for October 5, 2026. At this stage, the court has not ruled that cheating occurred, nor has it determined the truth of the complainant's allegations.

That distinction is especially important because several reports have loosely described the development as a “₹3 crore fraud case.” The ₹3 crore figure primarily refers to the amount Chandigarh businessman Arun Gupta says he invested in establishing the Being Human jewellery outlet. His claimed losses are separate allegations that remain unadjudicated.

What Arun Gupta has alleged

The dispute centres on a Being Human Jewellery showroom opened in Manimajra, Chandigarh.

Gupta says he invested close to ₹3 crore in the venture after entering into a commercial arrangement connected with the jewellery business. According to his complaint, more than ₹1 crore was spent on the physical setup of the showroom. He alleges that promised operational and promotional support did not materialise after the outlet began functioning.

He has further alleged that jewellery supplies became irregular and that the supply operation connected to the business had effectively been shut since February 2020, affecting stock availability and sales.

Gupta has also claimed that he was told Salman Khan would inaugurate the Chandigarh showroom. Salman did not attend the opening; actor Aayush Sharma, his brother-in-law, was present instead.

These are Gupta's allegations. They have not been established by a final court finding.

The contractual relationship is more complicated than the ‘Being Human fraud’ shorthand suggests

This is perhaps the most important piece of context missing from simplistic versions of the story.

In July 2021, when the dispute first drew significant attention, Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd issued a detailed statement explaining the commercial structure behind Being Human Jewellery.

The company said it had been appointed the global licensee for the Being Human jewellery vertical in December 2015 and was responsible for manufacturing and selling jewellery under the brand. It said that on August 3, 2018, it entered into an MoU with Gupta's Modern Jewels for the Chandigarh franchise.

Style Quotient's position was that neither Salman Khan, Alvira Khan Agnihotri nor the Being Human Foundation was a party to that MoU.

The company therefore argued that the contractual dispute was between Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd and Modern Jewels, not Salman or Alvira personally.

That earlier defence remains important context now that the matter has reached the pre-cognisance stage before a court.

Why the case resurfaced in 2026

The complaint itself is not new.

Back in July 2021, Chandigarh Police had sought responses from Salman, Alvira and others after Gupta approached authorities with allegations of cheating connected to the franchise. Contemporary PTI reporting at the time described Gupta as saying he had invested between ₹2 crore and ₹3 crore in opening the outlet.

Style Quotient responded publicly soon afterwards, disputing the attempt to connect Salman and Alvira personally with the franchise agreement.

The 2026 court development therefore should not be described as a newly discovered ₹3 crore controversy. It is the latest procedural step in a dispute whose basic allegations and defence have been in the public domain since 2021.

What does ‘pre cognisance notice’ mean?

This is where several entertainment headlines risk overstating what has happened.

LiveLaw reports that the Magistrate issued notice under the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS before taking cognisance of the complaint.

The provision requires an accused person to receive an opportunity to be heard before a Magistrate takes cognisance of an offence on a private complaint. The Supreme Court has also discussed this safeguard, explaining that the proviso places a restriction on taking cognisance without giving the proposed accused an opportunity to be heard.

So the October 5 appearance should not be interpreted as a conviction, a finding of fraud or even a judicial determination that the complaint's allegations are correct.

The court is still dealing with the case at an initial procedural stage.

Has Salman Khan responded to the latest court development?

No fresh public statement from Salman Khan addressing the August 2026 court notice was located in the material reviewed for this report.

However, there is an earlier substantive response connected with the same underlying dispute.

Style Quotient's July 2021 statement maintained that Salman, Alvira and the Foundation were not parties to the franchise MoU. It also said that Salman owned the Being Human brand while the jewellery business was being managed through the licensed company.

That defence should be included whenever Gupta's allegations are reported because presenting only the complaint would give readers an incomplete picture.

The Being Human jewellery business operated through licensing

Historical reporting supports the existence of this licensing arrangement.

When Being Human expanded into jewellery, Style Quotient Jewellery was publicly identified as the business associated with that vertical. The Being Human Foundation's own archived website also identified Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd as the exclusive global licensee for Being Human Jewellery.

This does not determine legal responsibility in Gupta's case. That is for the court to assess.

But it does explain why the distinction between brand ownership, foundation activity, licensing and franchise operations matters so much to the dispute.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The most important editorial lesson in this case is that “Salman Khan faces ₹3 crore fraud case” is much stronger than the verified record allows.

There is a cheating complaint. There is a businessman who says he invested nearly ₹3 crore. There is now a pre-cognisance court notice. But there is not a judicial finding that Salman Khan, Alvira Khan Agnihotri or the Being Human Foundation defrauded anyone.

There is also a documented defence dating back to 2021: Style Quotient said it, not Salman, Alvira or the Foundation, signed the franchise MoU with Gupta's business.

The October 5 proceedings matter because the dispute has moved beyond the earlier police-complaint stage into a court process. But responsible coverage should follow what the court actually decides rather than treating an allegation as an established offence.

Sources & Verification

This report was independently researched using LiveLaw's account of the Chandigarh court proceedings, the historical 2021 police-complaint coverage, Style Quotient Jewellery's earlier public response, archived Being Human licensing information and legal material explaining the operation of Section 223 BNSS.

The central legal point has been preserved carefully: the matter is at the pre-cognisance stage, and the allegations in Arun Gupta's complaint have not been adjudicated.