As per experiment wave or particle nature is observed.

The term and concept "wave-particle duality" is perhaps the most misleading and least useful of all those introduced in physics. It is simultaneously an anachronism and a contradiction in terms. In classical physics (and by extension that which motivated this ridiculous notion "wave-particle duality"), both waves and particles had ontological interpretations and were defined almost completely in opposition to one another. When it was discovered that neither existed but rather an entirely new "type" of physical system replaced both, the analogous properties between the new ontology and the previous understanding motivated not just a comparison but an equivalency between the outdated concepts from classical physics and their replacements in modern physics. There are neither particles nor waves, just the remnant of empirical studies motivated by and interpreted by an inaccurate epistemology. The continued dissemination of this "wave-particle duality" does nothing other than hinder the understanding of modern physics for those who must rely on popular science accounts.

Nothing has driven this point home as has the empirical realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment. Our ability to allow some quantum system to "run", stop it, and then determine after the fact whether the system exhibits wave-like or particle-like properties shows quite clearly that such properties are remnants of a defunct, inaccurate, and misleading conception of physical systems.

This question was understood as exclusive of both concepts, i.e, we see a particle in one point keeping its physical features constant as something material, while a wave means appears as a property no intrinsic to the particle. But in fact this is just an illusion: we know that by Heisenberg indeterminacy principle the particle cannot be in one fixed point. All that can be kept constant is an action at certain The duality wave-particle seems to be a paradoxical quantum mechanical behaviour size of it. And also the experiment of interference of particles crossing the double slit which is presented in every text of basic quantum mechanics shows clearly how it behaves as a classical wave. The mathematical formalisms of the schools of Copenhagen or Vienna soon have shown to be equivalent Perhaps the main mystery is here: how the particles can have a kind of wave front to produce the interference pattern.

In principle the physicists are accustomed to both aspects particle-wave as complementary and no contradictory within the quantum mechanical context although it was full of discussion during a long time, but what is less known is that this is not exclusive of this physical field of knowledge. Let me put two examples which are not devoted to fundamental particles but rather within "classical particles" and its physical background associated.

1. Brownian motion.

Curiously Einstein (he was one of the most critical with this dual concept) published in 1905 one paper explaining why the pollen grains in water are always making random trajectories. Although it was explained as due to the molecules of water randomly scattering with the pollen particles as Perrin experimentally showed at those times and winning the Nobel Prize in 1926 much earlier than Einstein. But in fact this physical effect is nothing more than the simplest of the continuous-time stochastic (or probabilistic) processes nowadays known where particle-random trajectory are complementary too.

Schlick, T. Molecular Modeling and Simulation. Springer. (2002).

2. Hydrodynamic pilot-wave systems.

Recently was discovered that a millimetric droplet sustained on the surface of a vibrating fluid bath may self-propel through a resonant interaction with its own wave field, which were shown experimentally that the walking droplets exhibit certain features previously thought to be exclusive to the microscopic,

quantum realm that we were speaking. In fact, this fluid system was shown to

be markedly different from Bohmian mechanics and more closely related to

de Broglie’s original conception of quantum dynamics, his double-solution

theory, and its relatively recent extensions through researchers in stochastic

electrodynamics.

J.M.W. Bush, Pilot-Wave Hydrodynamics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2015. 47:269–92

Wave particle duality is a concept of the old QM. In the new and much tested QM developed by Dirac et al is based on the fact that there are only "states" in the hilbert space. Simply put, there is no particle, and there is no wave. It is something entirely different and new, which we call as "state". The state has properties which conform to both as a particle and as a wave. In certain cases it acts exactly like one of them, but the point to be noted is that its not one of them, and we are not suppressing either one of them to explain how it behaves like the other. It's a state which cannot be visualized and is just a mathematical construct to simplify our understanding of the model.

Simply put, my point is: If you can visualize it, then its not in QM. Can you visualize a wave and a particle??  

There is an interference pattern while the "particles" are still detected at individual points.  That's what is called wave-corpuscle duality.  That it be old-fashion, misleading, or whatever, it remains that caracteristic properties of mutually exclusive classical concepts coexist in the same quantum phenomenon.  That's what isn't understood, under the phrase of "measurement problem," not how it is called, and however it is mathematically modelled.  Suppressing any one of these concepts  means falling back to classical mechanics.

A Hilbert space is just a set of wave functions.  A classical corpuscle can't be described by a Hilbert space.

There is no change in the theory if the wave function is replaced by an element of a Hilbert space, it's only a translation between different mathematical languages.  But any way we look at it, there is some contradiction, be it between the Hilbert space and the phase space or between the unitary evolution and the projection axioms.  That's what is called duality, or Bohr's complementarity.  At the phenomenological level, that is more like a wave-corpuscle duality, even if that isn't stricly correct at the theoretical level.

different people different representations and infinitely many interpretations, but if I am not wrong they all sum up to the same thing: Neither aspect of the quantum particle can be suppressed!! 

As per double slit experiment that the mere act of looking at the quantum particles immensely affect their distribution on the observational screen. Clearly quantum particles are very delicate: their motion gets modified when one tries to watch them. I mean this is a very quantum mechanical principle "That measurement interfere with the states of quantum particles" In the question suppression does not mean the complete removal/isolate. Actually I mean if in an experiment wave aspect of a particle is dominant by changing the conditions CAN we dominate its particle aspect? vice versa.

There is no domination by either aspect. Sometimes its more physical to look at them as classical particles and sometimes as waves. But try looking at them as states, which upon collapse can be called as a localized particle in the quantum sense.

And I think the Young's double Slit experiment can be explained by the particle nature...probably Feynman gave an interpretation...I am not sure about this. Probably someone more experienced can corroborate or negate it.