Short answer. Generally, no. Rule 117, Section 2 requires the motion to quash be in writing, signed by the accused or counsel, and to distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court considers no ground other than those stated in the motion, with one exception: lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
What the law says
The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds.
Rule 117, Section 2 — Form and contents. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Rule 117, Section 2 — Form and contents. Read the full provision →
Form requirements are strict
Section 2 sets out concrete form requirements for a motion to quash: it must be in writing, it must be signed by the accused or by counsel, and it must distinctly specify the factual and legal grounds relied on. A vague or oral objection does not satisfy this — the grounds have to be spelled out clearly in the document itself. These requirements exist so that both the prosecution and the court know exactly what is being challenged and why, rather than having to guess at an accused's objections from scattered remarks made during a hearing.
The court is confined to what you wrote
The rule's second sentence has real teeth: the court will consider no ground other than those stated in the motion. If a defect exists but you did not distinctly raise it in your written motion, you generally cannot rely on it to have the case quashed — the written motion defines the scope of the court's inquiry. This confinement gives the motion to quash real practical weight: an accused cannot treat the written motion as a placeholder and then argue whatever grounds seem convenient once the hearing actually begins, because the document filed with the court is what fixes the boundaries of what the judge may consider.
The one exception: jurisdiction over the offense
Section 2 carves out a single exception to that confinement: lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Because jurisdiction goes to the court's very authority to hear the case, this ground can be considered even if it was never distinctly specified in the written motion — unlike every other ground, which must be pleaded to be considered. The exception reflects a basic principle that runs through the Rules generally: a court without jurisdiction over the offense cannot validly proceed at all, so that defect can be raised, and must be recognized, regardless of whether the written motion happened to mention it.