Short answer. Yes. Rule 117, Section 3 lists, among the grounds for a motion to quash, "that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so." If the person who filed the information against you genuinely lacked the authority to prosecute, that is expressly one of the recognized grounds for quashing it.
What the law says
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
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 names this exact defect as one of its grounds: "That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so." If the specific individual who signed and filed the information against you did not have the authority to do so, that lack of authority is expressly recognized as a basis for quashing the case.
What this ground is really about
This ground is not about whether the charge itself is well-founded — it is about who had the power to bring it in the first place. An information is the formal charging document, and this ground exists because the law cares who is permitted to set a criminal prosecution in motion, separately from whether the underlying accusation has merit. A defect in the filing officer's authority is treated as a defect in the case itself, distinct from any question about your guilt.
The rest of the list, briefly
The section names eight other grounds addressing different problems — that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, that the trying court lacks jurisdiction over the offense or over the accused personally, 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 you would need to establish
The rule states the ground; it does not itself define which officers have authority to file an information in which circumstances, or spell out how that authority is granted or documented. Whether the specific person who filed against you genuinely lacked authority is a factual question that would depend on the rules and appointments governing prosecutorial authority in your case, not something this general ground answers on its own.