Short answer. Rule 117 lists nine grounds: the facts charged do not constitute an offense; no jurisdiction over the offense or over the accused; the filing officer lacked authority; defective form; more than one offense charged; extinguished criminal liability; averments amounting to a legal excuse or justification; and prior conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused's express consent.
What the law says
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
Rule 117, Section 3 — Grounds. Read the full provision →
What the law says
That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
Rule 117, Section 3 — Grounds. Read the full provision →
A closed list of nine
Rule 117, Section 3 permits the accused to move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds — and then lists exactly nine, lettered (a) to (i). The list is the menu: a motion to quash is not a vehicle for arguing innocence, weighing evidence, or protesting the strength of the prosecution's proof. Each ground attacks the charge itself — what it alleges, who filed it, where it was filed, or whether the accused can be prosecuted for it at all. Choosing the right ground matters, because different grounds carry different consequences for whether the case can simply be refiled.
Attacks on the substance of the charge
Three grounds go to the substance. First, That the facts charged do not constitute an offense — taking everything the information alleges as true, no crime is described. Second, That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, as where prescription has run or another mode of extinguishment applies. Third, that the information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification — the charge defeats itself on its own face. These are the quiet workhorses of the motion, because they are resolved on the document alone, without trial.
Attacks on authority, venue and form
Four grounds police how and where the charge was brought: that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; that it has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; and that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. A fifth polices duplicity — That more than one offense is charged, except where the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. Defects of this family are often curable by refiling or amendment, which is why they rarely end a prosecution outright, but they can undo one begun in the wrong court or by the wrong officer.
The double jeopardy ground
The last ground protects against being pursued twice: That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. Note the tail — a dismissal counts only if it happened without the accused's express consent, which is why an accused who seeks dismissal on other grounds is generally not building a double jeopardy defence. Anyone weighing a motion to quash should bring counsel the complete papers of any earlier case involving the same acts: the earlier information, the order that ended it, and the record of who asked for that ending.