Short answer. Usually, yes. An order sustaining a motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. The exceptions are quashals granted because the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, or because of double jeopardy — in those two situations the case cannot simply be refiled.
What the law says
An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule.
Rule 117, Section 6 — Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution; exception. Read the full provision →
Winning a quashal is not winning the case
This is the correction most people need first. A motion to quash attacks the charging paper — the complaint or information — or the authority behind it, not the question of guilt. Nobody has been tried; no evidence has been weighed. So the Rules treat a sustained motion to quash as clearing away a defective charge, not as ending the prosecution: the order is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. If the information was vague, filed in the wrong court, or otherwise flawed in a way that can be fixed, the prosecution can generally return with a corrected charge.
The two grounds that do end it
The rule carves out quashals based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule. Those are the two grounds that go beyond the paperwork to the State's very power to prosecute: that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished — as where the offense has prescribed or the accused has died — and double jeopardy, where the accused has already been convicted, acquitted, or had the case dismissed without consent for the same offense. A defect of that kind cannot be cured by better drafting, so a quashal on either ground bars another prosecution outright.
Read the order for its ground
Whether refiling is possible therefore turns entirely on why the motion was granted, and the answer is written in the order itself. An order quashing an information for a curable defect leaves the accused exposed to a new charge; an order resting on extinction of liability or double jeopardy closes the matter. If you are the accused, do not treat a quashal as an acquittal until you and your counsel have read the ground the court relied on. If you are the complainant, the same reading tells you whether pressing the prosecutor to refile is a live option or a dead end.
What each side should do next
For the accused, a quashal on a curable ground is breathing room, not closure — a corrected information may follow, so keep your counsel engaged and your evidence preserved. If you believe the true ground was prescription or a prior jeopardy, make sure the motion and the order say so expressly, because that wording is what stands between you and a second case. For the offended party, coordinate with the public prosecutor promptly: whether and how the charge is refiled is the prosecutor's call, and delay has its own cost, since the time within which the State may prosecute an offense continues to matter.