ORDER : Mr. Ajeet Singh, the petitioner in person. None for the respondent No. 1. Mr. A. R. S. Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 2. Heard. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to assail the order dated 18-5-2016 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 72/2015 wherein the order dated 17-12-2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in unregistered case (Ajeet Singh Anand @ Mange Sardar vs. B. L. Navrati) has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition are that, the petitioner filed a criminal case under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent No. 1-B. L. Navrati, Sub-Inspector, police station-Gohalpur, Jabalpur for offence under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that at the time of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 83/2013 dated 28-8-2013, for offences under sections 41(2) read with section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was made to undress in the police station therefore he was defamed in front of police persons present in the police station. It is also claimed that his right of privacy was encroached. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 17-12-2014 dismissed the complaint stating that the offence does not fall in the category of sections 500, 501 or 502 of Indian Penal Code as it is an exception under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the private complaint was dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 4-5. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred criminal revision No. 72/2015. Learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 18-5-2016 observed that identification mark, a mole on the private part of the accused was to be noted at the time of his arrest as required in the arrest memo and, therefore, the Sub-inspector-respondent undressed the petitioner in the police station and noticed the same, hence, no interference is called for in the order dated 17-12-2014. 6. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the orders impugned. 6. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the orders impugned. Essential ingredients of “defamation” are : (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (ii) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representation. (iii) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. 7. As regards offence under section 501, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that : (i) Printing or engraving any matter; (ii) Knowledge or reason to believe that such matter is defamatory. 8. For offence under section 502 of the Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients are essential : (i) Printing or engraving any matter; (ii) Knowledge or reason to believe that such matter is defamatory. 9. Prima facie, it seems that offence under section 501 and 502, Indian Penal Code is not made out as there is no allegation of printing or engraving of any matter. So far as section 500, Indian Penal Code is concerned, the accused has not made the petitioner to undress the intention of harming or with knowledge or intention to harm his reputation. It is true that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his right or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. But it is also true that at the time of arrest, the liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is suspended. 10. The proforma of arrest memo as per M. P. Police Regulations, provides at clause 8 that identification mark of the arrested person has to be mentioned. The petitioner was arrested on 28-8-2013 by police station - Gohalpur, district-Jabalpur in presence of Manoj Malik and Dharnish Pandey. In the column of identification mark, it is mentioned as ‘mole on his private part ‘. While the police officer arrests a person and fill up the arrest memo, he has to complete this form. Therefore, if the respondent had to undress the petitioner for verification of the identification mark, he was within his right. It is not alleged that the petitioner was made to undress in public or in a public place. 11. While the police officer arrests a person and fill up the arrest memo, he has to complete this form. Therefore, if the respondent had to undress the petitioner for verification of the identification mark, he was within his right. It is not alleged that the petitioner was made to undress in public or in a public place. 11. Regulations 761 and 813 of the M. P. Police Regulations, provide as follows : “761. Arrest of accused person.” The manner in which arrest should be made is described in sections 46 and 48 and section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When an investigating officer considers that a case against an accused person has been proved, he should, before arresting him, give an opportunity to explain the facts in evidence against him, should he wish to do so. Failure to do so frequently results in the prosecution of weak cases which break down in court when the accused explains the facts alleged against him. A person accused of an offence should not ordinary be arrested if the evidence is insufficient to justify prosecution, or the case is not worth sending before a court. 813. Arrested person Search of. Whenever a person is arrested on a charge of having committed a non-bailable offence he must be searched. Whenever possible this search should be conducted in the presence of two witnesses unconnected with the police and, when such witnesses cannot be procured, the fact must be mentioned in the case diary. Any marks, abrasions of injuries on the body of the person arrested alleges ill-treatment during the investigation in explanation of these injuries the fact must be immediately reported to the Superintendent. If the offence is bailable but the prisoner cannot furnish bail, the procedure will be the same as if the offence were non-bailable. Female searchers must be employed in searching a woman, and the search must be made with strict regard to decency.” 12. This Court hasten to clarify that respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police was only performing his duty. While filling up the form he had to verify that identification mark. He could not have written the mark of identification without verification. That being so, the element of mens rea is missing which is the essence of offence of defamation. 13. This Court hasten to clarify that respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police was only performing his duty. While filling up the form he had to verify that identification mark. He could not have written the mark of identification without verification. That being so, the element of mens rea is missing which is the essence of offence of defamation. 13. In this context, it would be appropriate to note that the respondent has not imputed any thing against the petitioner to defame him. Imputation means accusation against a person and it implies allegation of fact and not merely abuse. Therefore, the action of the respondent in the present context, cannot be per se defamatory. No imputation was made by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent acted in capacity of a police officer following the instructions provided in the M. P. Police Regulations as mentioned above and the petitioner was not made to remove his clothes in public. There is no mala fide intention behind the alleged action. 14. On the foregoing analysis, the allegation does not fall in the ambit and sweep of offence of “defamation”. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not consider, the orders passed by the Courts below suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, Therefore, interference is called for. 15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.