Short answer. Yes. Rule 117, Section 3 lists, among the grounds for a motion to quash, "that the facts charged do not constitute an offense." If your charge sheet's own factual allegations, even taken as true, don't add up to a crime under the law, that is expressly one of the recognized grounds for quashing it.
What the law says
That the facts charged do not constitute an offense
Rule 117, Section 3 — Grounds. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (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; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) 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 →
The ground that matches your situation
Rule 117, Section 3 lists this as the first ground on which an accused may move to quash: "That the facts charged do not constitute an offense." If the facts alleged in your charge sheet, even assuming every one of them is true, do not add up to any crime recognized under the law, that mismatch is expressly named as a basis for quashing the complaint or information.
This ground tests the allegations, not the evidence
This ground is about what the charge sheet says, not about whether the prosecution can actually prove it happened. The test is whether the facts as charged, taken at face value and assumed true, describe conduct the law punishes as a crime at all — not whether those facts are actually supported by evidence, and not whether you personally dispute that they happened. A charge can state facts that are false and still survive this ground, if those facts, were they true, would describe an offense.
The rest of the list, briefly
The section lists eight other grounds covering different problems — that the trying court lacks jurisdiction over the offense or over the accused personally, that the filing officer lacked authority, that the charge does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, that more than one offense is improperly charged together, that the criminal action or liability has already been extinguished, that the charge's own averments show a legal excuse or justification, and that the accused was already convicted, acquitted, or the case already dismissed or terminated without consent.
What this ground doesn't resolve
Winning on this ground does not amount to a finding that you did nothing wrong — it is a ruling that the charge, as drafted, fails to describe a punishable offense. Whether the underlying conduct actually happened, and whether it might fit some other, properly pleaded charge, is a separate question this specific ground does not decide. What it tests is narrow: does the charge sheet, on its own face, actually state a crime under the law.