Short answer. Yes. Rule 110, Section 6 states directly that when an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. A complaint or information that leaves out a known co-participant in the same offense does not follow this requirement.
What the law says
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.
Rule 110, Section 6 — Sufficiency of complaint or information. Read the full provision →
What makes a complaint or information sufficient
Rule 110, Section 6 sets out the baseline content a complaint or information needs: the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. These are the core elements that make the charging document sufficient to inform the accused of what they are being charged with and to let the case proceed.
The specific rule for multiple offenders
The same section then adds a direct instruction for cases involving more than one participant: when an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. This is phrased as a requirement, not an option left to the prosecutor's preference. Where several people acted together in committing the offense, the rule calls for all of them to be named together in the same charging document. The rule speaks of persons who committed the offense, so the requirement is measured by the prosecution's own version of what happened; it does not force the naming of people the evidence never puts inside the offense.
Why this matters for how the case proceeds
Naming everyone who participated in the same offense in one complaint or information keeps the case against all of them consolidated from the outset, rather than requiring separate charging documents for each participant even though the underlying facts and offense are the same. This reflects the reality that when a crime is committed by several people acting together, their individual roles and liability are often intertwined with each other and with the same set of facts, so trying the matter together, starting from the same charging document, follows naturally from how the rule frames the requirement. What Section 6 does not do is fix a consequence for leaving somebody out or say how such a defect must be raised; it fixes the content the charging document is supposed to carry.