Short answer. Yes, potentially. Rule 117, Section 3 lists as a ground for a motion to quash "that it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification." If the information's own factual allegations, taken as true, describe something like self-defense, that fits this specific ground for quashing before trial.
What the law says
That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
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 exactly this scenario as a ground for quashing: "That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification." If the information's own factual narration, assumed true exactly as written, describes something that amounts to a recognized legal excuse or justification — such as self-defense — that is expressly named as a basis to quash the case before trial.
Why this is judged from the document alone
This ground works from the four corners of the information itself, not from evidence you would present at trial. The test is whether the facts the prosecution itself alleged, if simply accepted as true, already describe a legal excuse or justification — not whether you can later prove those circumstances happened. If the prosecution's own narrative, on its face, contains everything needed to describe something like self-defense, the ground can be raised without waiting for trial to unfold.
The rest of the list, briefly
The section names eight other grounds addressing different problems — that the facts charged do not constitute an offense at all, 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, and that the accused was already convicted, acquitted, or the case already dismissed or terminated without consent.
What this ground doesn't decide for you
Whether the specific wording of your information actually contains every fact needed to describe a legal excuse or justification, as opposed to merely hinting at circumstances that fall short of a complete defense, is exactly the question that has to be worked through against the actual text of the charge. This article does not itself define what makes something a legal excuse or justification, or list what self-defense specifically requires — it only states that averments amounting to one, if present, are grounds to quash.