Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong Hwa

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 117
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 9 of 2000
• Date: 29 May 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Plaintiff Counsel: Paul Poh Kong Kok (Poh & Co)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 117
• Defendant Counsel: Tng Soon Chye (Tng Soon Chye & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 266 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Revision of proceedings,Whether application for personal protection order civil or criminal in nature,s 65(5) Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Ed),Family violence,ss 65(5) & 79 Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Ed),Family Law,Orders made pursuant to application for personal protection order under Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Ed),Whether such proceedings criminal in nature,s 23 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Entitlement to petition for criminal revision,Orders for protection

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This was a petition for criminal revision by Tan Hock Chuan (‘Hock Chuan’) as he was dissatisfied with the orders made by District Judge Regina Ow on 3 April 2002. The judge directed that Summons No. SS 5/2002 ("the first summons") and Summons No. SS 754/2002 ("the second summons") were to be heard jointly on 13 May 2002. The first summons was issued against the respondent, Tan Tiong Hwa (‘Tiong Hwa’), pursuant to a complaint lodged by Hock Chuan for family violence. The second summons was issued against Hock Chuan pursuant to a complaint lodged by Tiong Hwa against Hock Chuan for family violence based on the same incident that the first summons was founded upon.

History of proceedings

2 On 2 January 2002, Hock Chuan lodged a complaint under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 68 (‘CPC’) against Tiong Hwa for family violence under s 65(2) of the Women’s Charter, Cap 353. The examining magistrate issued the first summons against Tiong Hwa pursuant to s 42 of the CPC. The case was mentioned on 25 January 2002, 21 February 2002 and 27 March 2002 and was fixed for hearing on 13 May 2002.

3 Meanwhile, on 27 March 2002, Tiong Hwa applied for a counter-summons against Hock Chuan for family violence based on the same incident. Pursuant to that application, the second summons was issued against Hock Chuan and mentions was fixed on 3 April 2002 at 9 a.m.. On that date, Hock Chuan, but not Tiong Hwa, appeared in court at the appointed time. Consequently, Hock Chuan successfully applied to strike out the action against him.

4 On 3 April 2002, Tiong Hwa applied for the second summons to be restored in the absence of Hock Chuan. The application was allowed by District Judge Regina Ow. She also ordered that the second summons and the first summons were to be heard together on 13 May 2002 and that the affidavits that were already filed in the first summons were to be used in the joint trial.

The Criminal Revision

5 There were two issues before me. First, whether Hock Chuan was entitled to take out a petition for criminal revision. Secondly, if Hock Chuan was entitled to take out this petition, whether I should exercise the powers of criminal revision in his favour.

6 Criminal revisions are taken out pursuant to s 23 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (‘SCJA’), Chapter 322, read with s 266 of the CPC. Section 23 of the SCJA reads:

The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal...