A fresh legal development involving Bollywood actor Salman Khan Chandigarh court notice has attracted attention in Chandigarh. A Chandigarh district court has issued a pre-cognisance notice in a cheating complaint connected with a proposed Being Human jewellery showroom. The matter involves allegations by Chandigarh businessman Arun Gupta against Being Human, Salman Khan’s sister Alvira Khan Agnihotri and directors associated with Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd.
Importantly, these are allegations made in a complaint and have not been established as findings of guilt. The court’s notice is part of the legal process and does not by itself mean that the accused have been convicted or that the allegations have been proved.
Here is a detailed look at what happened, what the complainant alleges, what the court has ordered and when the matter is scheduled to come up next.
What Is the Salman Khan Chandigarh Court Case About?
The case concerns a jewellery showroom linked to the Being Human brand in Chandigarh.
According to the complaint, businessman Arun Gupta invested approximately ₹3 crore to establish the showroom. He alleged that more than ₹1 crore was spent on setting up the showroom and that he complied with requirements under his agreement with Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd, described in the court report as the licensed marketer of Being Human jewellery.
Gupta has alleged that the business support and jewellery supplies he expected after opening the showroom did not materialise as promised.
The case is titled Arun Gupta v. Style Quotient Jewellery.
What Allegations Have Been Made?
The complaint contains several allegations concerning the operation of the showroom.
According to the reported court proceedings, Gupta claims:
- He invested around ₹3 crore in the venture.
- More than ₹1 crore was spent on the showroom setup.
- He fulfilled requirements under his agreement.
- Promised business support allegedly did not materialise.
- Jewellery supplies allegedly became irregular.
- The supplying outlet was reportedly shut from February 2020.
- The disruption allegedly caused significant losses to the business.
- Gupta also said he expected Salman Khan to inaugurate the showroom, but Aayush Sharma, Khan’s brother-in-law, attended instead.
The complaint further alleges that people associated with the company misrepresented aspects of the business opportunity and induced the complainant to make the investment.
These claims remain allegations at this stage.
Why Has the Chandigarh Court Issued Notice?
The important development came on August 7, 2026, when a Chandigarh district court issued a pre-cognisance notice to the accused persons named in the complaint.
Judicial Magistrate Dr Ambika Sharma directed that notices be issued under the relevant provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at the pre-cognisance stage.
In simple terms, the court is allowing the persons named in the complaint an opportunity to respond before the court decides whether to formally take cognisance of the alleged offences.
This distinction is important: a court notice is not the same as a conviction or a finding that the allegations are true.
Who Has Been Named in the Matter?
The reported proceedings identify the matter as involving:
- Salman Khan’s Being Human entity
- Alvira Khan Agnihotri
- Directors of Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd
- Other persons connected with the jewellery business, according to the complaint.
The legal responsibility of each person or entity will ultimately depend on the evidence and the court’s consideration of the matter.
What Is the Hearing Date?
The court has directed that notice be issued for:
October 5, 2026
The order states that the matter is listed for 05.10.2026, subject to the filing and service requirements mentioned in the order.
This is therefore the key date for readers following the Chandigarh case.
Background: How Did the Dispute Begin?
The dispute is not entirely new.
A similar complaint involving the Being Human jewellery business and Chandigarh businessman Arun Gupta had received attention in 2021, when Chandigarh Police summoned Salman Khan, Alvira Khan Agnihotri and other people for inquiry after Gupta alleged financial wrongdoing connected to the showroom. At that time, reports said Gupta had invested crores in the project and alleged that promised support and supplies were not delivered.
The Being Human Foundation had previously issued a clarification saying that the dispute was between Style Quotient Jewellery Pvt Ltd and Modern Jewels, and that the foundation, Salman Khan and Alvira Khan were not parties to the relevant memorandum of understanding.
That earlier position is important context when discussing the current complaint.
What Happens Next?
The October 5 hearing could become important because the court will consider the matter after notices have been issued.
Depending on the proceedings and responses filed by the parties, the court may determine the next legal steps.
However, it would be premature to predict the outcome.
The case is still at a procedural stage, and the allegations need to be considered through the legal process.
Why Is This Case Getting Attention?
Salman Khan is one of India’s most recognisable film personalities, while Being Human is a brand closely associated with his public identity.
Consequently, any legal dispute involving the brand and a business investment attracts considerable public attention.
The case also highlights the importance of understanding the difference between:
Complaint → Court Notice → Cognisance → Trial → Judgment
A notice does not automatically mean that the court has found the accused guilty.
Key Points at a Glance
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case | Arun Gupta v. Style Quotient Jewellery |
| Court | Chandigarh District Court |
| Nature | Cheating complaint |
| Main complainant | Arun Gupta |
| Investment alleged | Approximately ₹3 crore |
| Business | Being Human jewellery showroom |
| Important allegation | Promised support/supplies allegedly not provided |
| Showroom location | Manimajra, Chandigarh |
| Notice stage | Pre-cognisance |
| Notice date reported | August 7, 2026 |
| Next date | October 5, 2026 |
The above details are based on the latest available report of the court proceedings.
Conclusion
The Salman Khan Chandigarh court notice case relates to allegations arising from a Being Human jewellery showroom investment. Chandigarh businessman Arun Gupta alleges that he invested around ₹3 crore but later faced problems involving promised business support and jewellery supplies.
The Chandigarh district court has now issued a pre-cognisance notice, with the matter listed for October 5, 2026.
For now, it is essential to distinguish between allegations and proven facts. The court process will determine how the complaint proceeds and whether any legal liability is ultimately established.
FAQs
1. Why did the Chandigarh court issue notice to Salman Khan’s Being Human-related entities?
The notice was issued in connection with a cheating complaint filed by businessman Arun Gupta concerning a Being Human jewellery showroom investment.
2. How much money did the complainant allegedly invest?
The complaint says approximately ₹3 crore was invested in setting up the jewellery showroom.
3. What are the main allegations?
The complainant alleges that promised business support and jewellery supplies did not materialise and that the resulting disruption caused substantial financial losses.
4. When is the next hearing?
The court has issued notice for October 5, 2026.
5. Does the court notice mean Salman Khan has been found guilty?
No. A notice at the pre-cognisance stage is not a conviction or a finding that the allegations have been proved.
6. Who is the complainant?
The complaint was filed by Chandigarh businessman Arun Gupta.
7. What happened to the showroom’s jewellery supply?
According to the complaint, the supply became irregular and the supplying outlet was shut from February 2020, which the complainant says affected his business.
8. Was this matter reported earlier?
Yes. A related dispute received attention in 2021, when Chandigarh Police issued notices/summons for inquiry following Gupta’s complaint